Oil and Gas Boom that Obama can't kill

[okie52]

Oil and Gas Boom that Obama Can't Kill


Bob Beauprez

Moratoriums, permitting bans, cancelling leases, Wild Land designations, EPA regulations on steroids, and tens of billions in DOE loans and subsidies for the alternative green energy industry…..the Obama Administration has done everything in their considerable power to strangle America’s oil and gas industry to death, but it just refuses to die. In fact, it seems to be stronger than ever.

With 26 million people unemployed, under-employed, or having completely given up even trying to find a job, the oil and gas industry is bucking the trend during this prolonged economic recession by adding jobs and producing more badly needed energy right here at home. A Thanksgiving weekend editorial in the Wall Street Journal reports that business is booming in energy rich America in the shrinking number of places not shut off by an Administration Steve Forbes blasted for “the most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history.” Following is a summary of the WSJ editorial:
Oil and gas production now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period.
States that embrace oil and gas production are reaping the rewards. North Dakota has the nation's lowest jobless rate, at 3.5%, and the state now has some 200 rigs pumping 440,000 barrels of oil a day, four times the amount in 2006. The state reports more than 16,000 current job openings, and places like Williston have become meccas for workers seeking jobs that often pay more than $100,000 a year.
Production in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale formation created 18,000 new jobs in the first half of 2011. Some 214,000 jobs are now tied to a natural gas industry that barely existed in the Keystone State a decade ago.
Energy firms are also rushing to develop the Utica shale in eastern Ohio, and they are expanding operations in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, among other places.
Oil and Gas could do even more for our struggling economy if the Obama Administration would just stop waging war against it. The Wood Mackenzie consulting firm estimated that better federal energy policy would create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

For all the blather about saving-and-creating jobs, you might think the Administration would embrace what’s going on in oil and gas and try to glom on to the good news in one of the few industries doing well right now. But, no; in fact the war on oil and gas goes on.

In the new five-year plan recently released by Ken Salazar at the Interior Department, most of the Outer Continental Shelf remains off limits. The President has delayed even a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline for at least another year; a project that would create 20,000 direct jobs and deliver 900,000 bpd of Canadian tar sands oil to the gulf coast refineries.

The energy goal of the Obama Administration to “boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” is well on the way with gas at the pump currently 80 percent more costly than when Obama took office. And, while we pay more at the pump, federal revenue from offshore bonus bids – a front end payment from lease sales – has plummeted to just $36 million from the $9.5 billion in FY 2008 according to the WSJ.

So, while the Administration’s policy is costing consumer’s more for energy and they have squandered billions on questionable, even scandalous, green energy loans like Solyndra, billions in revenue is also lost due to an unwillingness to even make leases available at auction.

As the WSJ editors explain, “The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota's Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed.”

Healthy, growing economies require adequate supplies of affordable energy and for the foreseeable future about 85 percent of America’s needs are going to come from fossil fuel sources. The oil and gas industry played a vital role in the growth of the great American economy during the last century, and it can lead the way for our economic recovery and a strong future again if only our government would give it a fight chance.

[diverdog]

Good article.

[okie52]

Did you notice the lease bonus sales have dropped from 9.5 billion to 36 million in 3 years? That is over twice the amount Obama rails about the oil companies getting in writeoffs.

[StoopTroup]

So to get more folks new jobs, it says right there that Obama didn't need to change anything. The market and the players in the market simply made their own adjustments and boom....new jobs.

Now, if I'm the current POTUS and that worked, why would I use more Government Intervention to help the Oil and Gas Industry during an election?

To me it would be risky.

This article tries to paint a guarantee that the Oil and Gas Industry would guarantee even more jobs if The POTUS would do all the things in the article. I have a hard time believing that the price of gas would go down if we suddenly opened up all these Domestic Tactics when Speculation is the main reason for the price. I also have a hard time believing that Obama doing anything prior to the election would result in anything positive for him or America. I believe it's really more of an election tactic that allows for complaints against the POTUS no matter whether he does any of that BS in the article prior to the election.

What Obama more than likely is doing is pretty smart. He's continuing to educate Americans in regards to all of this as after the election it won't be as much of a political position and if any of it is blocked in the House and Senate by this Grover Norquist Movement The Republican Party will set themselves up to lose in 2016 as well.

[OULenexaman]

Did you notice the lease bonus sales have dropped from 9.5 billion to 36 million in 3 years? That is over twice the amount Obama rails about the oil companies getting in writeoffs. YES I did......that one really jumped out at me.

[okie52]

So to get more folks new jobs, it says right there that Obama didn't need to change anything. The market and the players in the market simply made their own adjustments and boom....new jobs.

Now, if I'm the current POTUS and that worked, why would I use more Government Intervention to help the Oil and Gas Industry during an election?

To me it would be risky.

This article tries to paint a guarantee that the Oil and Gas Industry would guarantee even more jobs if The POTUS would do all the things in the article. I have a hard time believing that the price of gas would go down if we suddenly opened up all these Domestic Tactics when Speculation is the main reason for the price. I also have a hard time believing that Obama doing anything prior to the election would result in anything positive for him or America. I believe it's really more of an election tactic that allows for complaints against the POTUS no matter whether he does any of that BS in the article prior to the election.

What Obama more than likely is doing is pretty smart. He's continuing to educate Americans in regards to all of this as after the election it won't be as much of a political position and if any of it is blocked in the House and Senate by this Grover Norquist Movement The Republican Party will set themselves up to lose in 2016 as well.


Politically it probably always played to his base but that doesn't mean it's what is best for the country. Price isn't really a factor although it certainly won't be hurt by additional US exploration.

You are right...in Obama's first 3 years he has done just about everything he can to hinder or harm the oil and gas industry (as the article states) and the industry has survived...even grown in spite of these attacks. This column was also written before Obama's state of the union so the author didn't get to include Obama's rhetoric of embracing NG and opening up "our coasts" for offshore exploration. Of course, he reneged on the offshore drilling off of our coasts shortly thereafter.

Obama continues to "educate" the American public on all of this? Good lord, you've swallowed the Obama pablum and hopefully you'll find a better source regarding our energy concerns and policies. He rails about oil company writeoffs to the tune of $4,000,000,000 a year and squanders 9.5 billion in lease bonuses. That makes sense to you?

Now is it really hard for you to visualize the job creations from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts being opened up to oil and gas exploration? Over 1/2 of the Gulf Coasts economy is due to oil and gas. Certainly not hard to project a measure of that success to the other coasts. The jobs are there, the billions in lease bonuses, the billions in oil and gas royalties are there, and the billions in tax revenues are there. Only thing keeping them from being a reality is Obama.

You are really dreaming if you think the repubs are the ones that will be the ones that suffer from Obama's anti oil and gas positions. And, BTW, Obama is the only one standing between drilling off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Not congress. Not the repubs. Not even the dems. Just Obama. He has already done it for 3 years and only a fool would think that would change in the next 5 years if he is re-elected.

[StoopTroup]

I'm not dreaming. Obama is in office. You can continue to post blather about he's killing the Oil and Gas industry but IMO I never understood seeing BP buy AMACO as anything good for America. I had tons of friends lose jobs and some become servants to BP. It was one of the most God awful things I've ever seen.

I know many of you are passionate about oil and gas and continue to believe that Obama is a threat but it's pretty hard to swallow that when his stance is Government hands off and that's what the current Republicans trying to get into office are preaching.

You can have things both ways for a short time and it will be profitable as hell but eventually they all get broke up into pieces and fall apart. Such is business. Protecting that is tantamount to protecting the Business via Government intervention.

Obama just proved you wrong in that guys first paragraph. Staying out of it has created jobs. Intervention and legislation isn't the way to go. Even pubs deal for adding new taxes is in the way. Maybe...just maybe some of what you think should happen would of if there was some compromise on raising taxes on the wealthy. It's not happening right now as they have all signed agreements with a lobbyist (Grover Norquist ) instead of listening to Americans. You are backing the wrong horse.

[okie52]

I'm not dreaming. Obama is in office. You can continue to post blather about he's killing the Oil and Gas industry but IMO I never understood seeing BP buy AMACO as anything good for America. I had tons of friends lose jobs and some become servants to BP. It was one of the most God awful things I've ever seen.

I know many of you are passionate about oil and gas and continue to believe that Obama is a threat but it's pretty hard to swallow that when his stance is Government hands off and that's what the current Republicans trying to get into office are preaching.

You can have things both ways for a short time and it will be profitable as hell but eventually they all get broke up into pieces and fall apart. Such is business. Protecting that is tantamount to protecting the Business via Government intervention.

Obama just proved you wrong in that guys first paragraph. Staying out of it has created jobs.

Obama is in office. Well, you got that right unfortunately.

Talk about blather. What the He11 does BP buying out Amoco have to do with anything? There are a lot of us oilies that have lost their jobs in the oil business, myself included in 1986 when the Saudis flooded the market. Guess what? We didn't get a government bailout and 90,000 Oklahomans lost their jobs in the oil and gas industry. That is the nature of the oil industry. We understand it and accept it as the risk of working in the industry...unlike other industries that have had billions thrown their way by.......the president.

I have absolutely no idea what your statement about both ways meant.

Where do you get this government hands off? Nobody is asking them for anything. All that is being requested is that the President reopen the Atlantic and Pacific to oil and gas exploration so we can develop the country's reserves...the government will be getting a ton of money, the country will move towards energy independence, and thousands of people will get good, high paying jobs. There is no tax payer money involved here only profits and jobs for the country and its citizens. Obama isn't staying out of it he is blocking it. Really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend...unless, of course, you think the $80,000,000,000 he threw at green energy is "staying out of it" and cap and trade was non intervention by the government.

[StoopTroup]

I will never understand why you sit here blathering about a US POTUS when we allowed a British Oil Company to take over an American Company and then not only drill oil off our Coast and basically deplete our oil for their own wealth. When the spill happened our POTUS basically had to threaten them and our own industry in order to get them to clean it up.

I know you don't want to give Obama credit for getting one of the if not the worst oil spill in History cleaned up.

BP could disappear off the face of the Earth for all I care.

[StoopTroup]

Also Okie, Obama is blocking it? Like I said before, he can't win either way politically so there is no reason to make a move unless some compromise happens. You continue to try and ignore what I've told you. You don't believe it unless it benefits you. I understand that. It's called self preservation.

[OU_Sooners75]

I will never understand why you sit here blathering about a US POTUS when we allowed a British Oil Company to take over an American Company and then not only drill oil off our Coast and basically deplete our oil for their own wealth. When the spill happened our POTUS basically had to threaten them and our own industry in order to get them to clean it up.

I know you don't want to give Obama credit for getting one of the if not the worst oil spill in History cleaned up.

BP could disappear off the face of the Earth for all I care.

So Obama got it cleaned up?

Okay!

[OU_Sooners75]

Also Okie, Obama is blocking it? Like I said before, he can't win either way politically so there is no reason to make a move unless some compromise happens. You continue to try and ignore what I've told you. You don't believe it unless it benefits you. I understand that. It's called self preservation.

He is blocking it. He has caved to the evironmentalists and their agenda to keep oil production out of the seas.

The US is struggling with millions of unemployed citizens. We are struggling to get the economy back on track. Something is available to ease some of the worry, yet our President sits on his hands because he doesn't want to **** off the far left liberal base!

If he is elected again (and that is a big if), then he will won't care what his base thinks. He will open it up. He will allow the Oil and Gas Companies to start drilling off shore again. And he will be looked at as a savior from the far left...but the right wing will know what and why he did it.

This is a ploy to keep his base happy and to gain votes from them...nothing more!

[okie52]

I will never understand why you sit here blathering about a US POTUS when we allowed a British Oil Company to take over an American Company and then not only drill oil off our Coast and basically deplete our oil for their own wealth. When the spill happened our POTUS basically had to threaten them and our own industry in order to get them to clean it up.

I know you don't want to give Obama credit for getting one of the if not the worst oil spill in History cleaned up.

BP could disappear off the face of the Earth for all I care.

LOL.

You are all over the board with your statements. You are really embarrassing yourself but are obviously too ignorant on the matter to know it.

US companies are bought by foreign companies all of the time...and vice versa. This is a problem for you or is it just in the energy field? Obama sold off Chrysler to Fiat...that okay?
This is somehow relevant to Obama on banning drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts or how Obama is harmful for oil and gas production in the US or how Obama is thwarting jobs and energy independence?

Deplete our oil for their own wealth? Another embarrassing statement.

BP bought the leasehold rights at a US government lease sale open to all other US oil companies and other international companies. Highest bonus money (price in deference to you) would normally win the bid. The US government is paid royalties (again, in deference to you, money) for the lease based on the amount the lease produces or the US has the right to take the royalty in Kind (once more, in deference to you, oil & gas). All of the expenses of drilling, completing, and getting on line the well or wells from the leased property were paid for by BP and its partners (25% was Anadarko, a US company).

Obama threatened our industry over the BP spill? Why would he do that? Didn't BP pay for their damages? Obama now gets credit for the spill cleanup? I thought many were critical of his handling of the spill. I didn't think he did a bad job in that area but it looks like most of the oil related to the spill was just "swept away".

Obama was ordered twice by the courts to reopen the Gulf drilling and to quit denying/slow playing permits or he was going to be found in contempt of the court. Not a new strategy by him since he has been a hindrance to many exploration projects. Are you giving him credit for that?

The fact that you don't like BP really has nothing to do with what a horrible energy president Obama has been...but don't let that stop you from flailing at strawmen. I will take your silence on the matter as your approval of Obama's $80,000,000,000 "gift" for green energy and his government intervention through cap and trade on the energy sector. Now what was your hand's off statement again?

[OULenexaman]

yuuuup!! Troop be all over the place....like BHO.

[okie52]

Also Okie, Obama is blocking it? Like I said before, he can't win either way politically so there is no reason to make a move unless some compromise happens. You continue to try and ignore what I've told you. You don't believe it unless it benefits you. I understand that. It's called self preservation.

I'll try to help you along here even though you don't have a clue about oil and gas.

When Obama took office he was the first president to do so in over thirty years with both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts being open to offshore drilling. The congressional ban on offshore drilling off of coasts had been allowed to expire in 2008 by congress (and even a dem one at that) due to public pressure for drilling. Bush then removed an executive ban that had also been in place for 30 years that banned offshore drilling. W had set up lease sales to occur in 2010 on a number of offshore tracts.

Obama delayed the lease sale until 2012 and then reinstated the executive ban in december 2010 for both coasts. He is the only person that is NOW standing in the way of drilling off of our coasts.

Obama had the house pass his cap and trade bill in 2009. It punished coal, oil and NG while rewarding ethanol as a favored fuel source (even though NG is cleaner than ethanol). Of course it was particularly stupid in that he would have had the US go it alone on this issue and our businesses would have suffered in global competition. Now Obama is publicly embracing NG (see state of the union) yet he has only tried to harm it in his 1st 3 years. He states we have a 100 year supply of NG but has never made an effort to move transportation to NG even though that would be our quickest path to energy independence and show the quickest reduction in CO2 (supposedly his stated goal but his policies dont' support it). Thank goodness Chesapeake is willing to invest $1,000,000,000 to develop an NG network to sustain NG vehicles when we have an ideologue committed to nationally destructive policies on energy.

[okie52]

yuuuup!! Troop be all over the place....like BHO.

Other than being a BHO supporter that's about all I can get from his posts.

[rock on sooner]

Hey, Okie52...question....Do you think favoring ethanol had anything to do with helping
corn growers and the many ethanol plants that popped up to make the stuff? I think
that was a factor. I know there's a LOT of back and forth about the "renewables".
What's your take on it?

[ictsooner7]

Again, your "facts" don't add up. From the government. Tell me again how Obama is killing the oil industry, Down when bush was president, up when Obama is president.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif"]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif

from the wall street jounal

Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?

The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.

The drilling boom is being driven by a variety of factors. New technologies have allowed companies to tap vast new oil reserves in places like North Dakota, Texas and, most recently, Ohio. High oil prices are making once-unprofitable fields more tempting. And low natural-gas prices are leading companies to shift their focus to finding oil. Natural-gas drilling, which generally uses the same rigs but in different places, is down 8% in the past year.

All that drilling is helping to boost U.S. oil production. The U.S. pumped 3.9 million barrels a day from onshore fields in March, up 5.9% from a year earlier and the most in nearly a decade.

Rising production—along with other factors such as increased use of alternative fuels and reduced consumption due to more fuel-efficient cars—is helping to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. U.S. crude oil imports last week were down 11% from a year ago; on a percentage basis, the U.S. imported less of its oil last year than any year since 2003.

The trend may not continue, however. Oil prices have fallen to about $85 a barrel in recent weeks, down sharply from their highs of well over $100 a barrel last spring. The drop won’t make companies stop drilling, but lower prices combined with higher costs could be enough to slow the rig count’s rapid rise.

[OU_Sooners75]

And it damn sure isn't because of Obama there dumbass!:playful:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPErFLWht1U

[ictsooner7]

And it damn sure isn't because of Obama there dumbass!:playful:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPErFLWht1U

Nice personal insult.

You are so right, debt being tripled under reagan, democrats fault, bush I doubling it again doesn't count, longest peacetime economic expansion under clinton, reagan did it,balanced budget, republicans, 9/11 clintons fault, economic meltdown 2007 clinton again, bush II doubling the debt, obamas fault, bin laden dead, bush, unemployment obama. Do I have it right?

[REDREX]

Barack did nothing in the killing of Bin Laden but give the OK----I guess you think Clinton was a ***** for not taking him out when he had the chance

[ictsooner7]

Barack did nothing in the killing of Bin Laden but give the OK----I guess you think Clinton was a ***** for not taking him out when he had the chance

See told you, 9-11 clintons fault.

parallel universe

[REDREX]

See told you, 9-11 clintons fault.

parallel universe---Didn't say that just said that Clinton could have killed him and did not---But the planning was done on his watch. --If Barack pulled the trigger why didn't Bubba?------It is a joke to give much of the credit for Killing Bin Laden to Obama

[ictsooner7]

Barack did nothing in the killing of Bin Laden but give the OK----I guess you think Clinton was a ***** for not taking him out when he had the chance

Bush allowed the CIA unit that was dedicated to searching for bin Laden to disband. Obama restarted it and killed bin Laden, cleaning up yet another failure of the most incompentent president in our history. Try to learn history or stop lying about it. parallel universe

CIA disbands Bin laden unit

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

The Guardian, Tuesday 4 July 2006 13.23 EDT
Article history


Nearly five years after George Bush vowed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice "dead or alive", it's the end of the line for the CIA's Alec Station, the unit dedicated to the hunt for the al-Qaida leader.

The unit, named after the son of a counter-terror official, was disbanded last year, it emerged this week, and its agents reassigned in what intelligence officials described as a recognition of the changing nature of al-Qaida.

Obama said that after he entered the White House in 2009, he had ordered CIA director Leon Panetta to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the "top priority of our war against al Qaeda." Then, in August, he was briefed on "a possible lead" to the elusive terrorist's hiding place. "It took many months to run this thread to ground," he said.

By Friday, a senior White House official said, the evidence had become sufficiently certain that Obama was able to give the go-ahead for the operation.

After years of rumors that the world's most-wanted man was hiding in the caves and rugged redoubts of the Pakistan- Afghanistan border region, the CIA ultimately found him hiding in what officials described as a comfortable mansion surrounded by a high wall in a small town near Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.

On Sunday, a "small team" of Americans raided the compound. After a firefight, the president said, they killed Bin Laden. No Americans were injured in the raid.

[rock on sooner]

---Didn't say that just said that Clinton could have killed him and did not---But the planning was done on his watch. --If Barack pulled the trigger why didn't Bubba?------It is a joke to give much of the credit for Killing Bin Laden to Obama

Pretty sure that Clinton did pull the trigger...cruise missles missed Bin Laden and his party by
about two hours...

[REDREX]

Too bad you did not grow up and get a life during your little "absence" ----Still as arrogant as ever

[ictsooner7]

---Didn't say that just said that Clinton could have killed him and did not---But the planning was done on his watch. --If Barack pulled the trigger why didn't Bubba?------It is a joke to give much of the credit for Killing Bin Laden to Obama

Why didn't bush stop bin Laden after he was WARNED he wanted to attack America?

[ictsooner7]

Too bad you did not grow up and get a life during your little "absence" ----Still as arrogant as ever

Arrogant??? I'M RIGHT, what did I show you that is wrong? BUSH dropped the unit, in secret, and Obama made it a priority. LEADERSHIP.


You live in a parallel universe.

[okie52]

Hey, Okie52...question....Do you think favoring ethanol had anything to do with helping
corn growers and the many ethanol plants that popped up to make the stuff? I think
that was a factor. I know there's a LOT of back and forth about the "renewables".
What's your take on it?

ROS- it started with his 2008 campaign in Iowa which is the largest corn producer and it helped him win that caucus...surprising Hillary. Illinois is also a big corn producer so his home state is taken care of too. I imagine that Obama sees corn ethanol being ultimately replaced by some algae form of ethanol as even al gore has now backed off of corn ethanol as a fuel source.

Farmers already get a ton of subsidies...ethanol is just one more.

[ictsooner7]

ROS- it started with his 2008 campaign in Iowa which is the largest corn producer and it helped him win that caucus...surprising Hillary. Illinois is also a big corn producer so his home state is taken care of too. I imagine that Obama sees corn ethanol being ultimately replaced by some algae form of ethanol as even al gore has now backed off of corn ethanol as a fuel source.

Farmers already get a ton of subsidies...ethanol is just one more.

Wrong again Okie,

But there's a nearer-term battle brewing over corn-based ethanol. A 2005 law requires that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be produced by 2012 -- 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011.


President Barack Obama did not ask Congress to extend ethanol subsidies in his budget request for FY 2012.

The subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2011 and would cost more than $6 billion to extend for one year.

The bill that extended Bush-era tax cuts last year also including a provision to extend subsidies for corn ethanol — and divert even more corn to our fuel supplies at a time when federal ethanol mandates already consume more than 40 percent of the corn crop.


It was the REPUBLICANS who wanted it to grow. Obama did support them in 2010, but now has let them expire. Once again, a republican program, Obamas fault.

[okie52]

Again, your "facts" don't add up. From the government. Tell me again how Obama is killing the oil industry, Down when bush was president, up when Obama is president.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif"]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif

from the wall street jounal

Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?

The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.

The drilling boom is being driven by a variety of factors. New technologies have allowed companies to tap vast new oil reserves in places like North Dakota, Texas and, most recently, Ohio. High oil prices are making once-unprofitable fields more tempting. And low natural-gas prices are leading companies to shift their focus to finding oil. Natural-gas drilling, which generally uses the same rigs but in different places, is down 8% in the past year.

All that drilling is helping to boost U.S. oil production. The U.S. pumped 3.9 million barrels a day from onshore fields in March, up 5.9% from a year earlier and the most in nearly a decade.

Rising production—along with other factors such as increased use of alternative fuels and reduced consumption due to more fuel-efficient cars—is helping to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. U.S. crude oil imports last week were down 11% from a year ago; on a percentage basis, the U.S. imported less of its oil last year than any year since 2003.

The trend may not continue, however. Oil prices have fallen to about $85 a barrel in recent weeks, down sharply from their highs of well over $100 a barrel last spring. The drop won’t make companies stop drilling, but lower prices combined with higher costs could be enough to slow the rig count’s rapid rise.

Your short term memory continues to impress in spite of the many times I've posted facts to show Obama to be an energy idiot.

The oil and gas industry has grown in spite of obama's attempts to stifle it. He has shut down both coasts and a large part of oil and gas reserves...why? thousands of jobs, billions in royalties, billions in tax revenues,Billions in lease bonus money and would move us towards energy independence, decrease our trade deficit and liberate our foreign policy. Why?

He passed cap and trade in the house which punished NG. why?

Lease bonus money from offshore lease sales dropped from 9.5 billion in 2008 to 36,000,000 last year...yeah Obama is just killing it in the oil and gas sector.

He now (in an election year) states that he is embracing ng and we have a 100 year supply of ng but has done absolutely nothing to promote its use in transportation. Now amazingly after 3 years has he magically "found" ng as a favored fuel source. Why?

He gave $80,000,000,000 to green energy but hasn't found a penny for ng to help develop a network for ng distribution. Why?

He has sought to to remove tax write offs from oil and gas producers...the same write offs that are given to just about every industry...why?

He could find it in his obamacare to give unions a $60,000,000,000 exemption...regardless of income level but bitches about the $4,000,000,000 in write offs for the oil and gas industry...why?

Obama was twice ordered by the courts to reopen the gulf. Over 1/2 of the gulf economy is dependent on oil and gas yet Obama stifled drilling in the gulf and disregarded court orders.

The oil plays in the shales didn't start until 2005 in the Bakken field by none other than Harold hamm. The same guy that tried to tell Obama that these fields could help the US significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil to which Obama responded "oil and gas will be important for a little while but Chu tells me we will have a battery car that gets 135 mpg car in 5 years". That kind of logic is hard to argue with...Hamm will now be Romneys energy advisor. Go figure.

But why don't you tell us how Obama has helped the development of oil and gas.

[soonercruiser]

I'm not dreaming. Obama is in office.
I know many of you are passionate about oil and gas and continue to believe that Obama is a threat but it's pretty hard to swallow that when his stance is Government hands off and that's what the current Republicans trying to get into office are preaching.

Obama just proved you wrong in that guys first paragraph.

Sorry, but that post doesn't even make common sense.
When you simply look at all the regulation and stumbling blocks placed in the way of energy companies by the "Administrative Branch", how can you even post this with a straight face?

No! You were dreaming when reading the first paragraph!
The point is that you can't hold down a capitalistic energy economy.
Obama can hold hostage the approval process and access to public land/sea. But he can't tell the states what to do with their land! "Yet"!
All that is happening in the energy sector is happening IN SPITE of Obama!
And, some of it because of policies of the Boooosh administration.....since we are still blaming him aren't we?

[okie52]

Wrong again Okie,

But there's a nearer-term battle brewing over corn-based ethanol. A 2005 law requires that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be produced by 2012 -- 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011.




President Barack Obama did not ask Congress to extend ethanol subsidies in his budget request for FY 2012.

The subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2011 and would cost more than $6 billion to extend for one year.

The bill that extended Bush-era tax cuts last year also including a provision to extend subsidies for corn ethanol — and divert even more corn to our fuel supplies at a time when federal ethanol mandates already consume more than 40 percent of the corn crop.


It was the REPUBLICANS who wanted it to grow. Obama did support them in 2010, but now has let them expire. Once again, a republican program, Obamas fault.

Yep Obama demanded that ethanol be included in his 2009 cap and trade bill as a favored fuel source even when the EPA said it was dirtier than gasoline...but he chose to punish ng in the same bill...makes sense to you...right ict?

[soonercruiser]

So Obama got it cleaned up?

Okay!

When Obama and his cronnies got off the airplane in LA after the big spill, all he and his right hand man could do was CURSE at Gindal! Ya! That helped a lot to clean up the spill didn't it Stoop?
All Obama was concerned about at the time was his public image!

[soonercruiser]

Wrong again Okie,

But there's a nearer-term battle brewing over corn-based ethanol. A 2005 law requires that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be produced by 2012 -- 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011.


President Barack Obama did not ask Congress to extend ethanol subsidies in his budget request for FY 2012.

The subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2011 and would cost more than $6 billion to extend for one year.

The bill that extended Bush-era tax cuts last year also including a provision to extend subsidies for corn ethanol — and divert even more corn to our fuel supplies at a time when federal ethanol mandates already consume more than 40 percent of the corn crop.


It was the REPUBLICANS who wanted it to grow. Obama did support them in 2010, but now has let them expire. Once again, a republican program, Obamas fault.

This is a completely phrenic interpretation of history and what was happening.
The Repugs of late have been pressing for an end to ethanol subsidies!
You know, there was one of those MANY Bills passed by the House, that never was allowed to come to the floor in Harry Reid's Senate!
That is why Obama made them a target in his budget.
Just like Military cuts....an easy target!

[olevetonahill]

Again, your "facts" don't add up. From the government. Tell me again how Obama is killing the oil industry, Down when bush was president, up when Obama is president.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif"]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif

from the wall street jounal

Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?

The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.

The drilling boom is being driven by a variety of factors. New technologies have allowed companies to tap vast new oil reserves in places like North Dakota, Texas and, most recently, Ohio. High oil prices are making once-unprofitable fields more tempting. And low natural-gas prices are leading companies to shift their focus to finding oil. Natural-gas drilling, which generally uses the same rigs but in different places, is down 8% in the past year.

All that drilling is helping to boost U.S. oil production. The U.S. pumped 3.9 million barrels a day from onshore fields in March, up 5.9% from a year earlier and the most in nearly a decade.

Rising production—along with other factors such as increased use of alternative fuels and reduced consumption due to more fuel-efficient cars—is helping to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. U.S. crude oil imports last week were down 11% from a year ago; on a percentage basis, the U.S. imported less of its oil last year than any year since 2003.

The trend may not continue, however. Oil prices have fallen to about $85 a barrel in recent weeks, down sharply from their highs of well over $100 a barrel last spring. The drop won’t make companies stop drilling, but lower prices combined with higher costs could be enough to slow the rig count’s rapid rise.



Where in Holy Hell are you gettin that Price?
Oil is Over 106 per Barrel right now

[ictsooner7]

Yep Obama demanded that ethanol be included in his 2009 cap and trade bill as a favored fuel source even when the EPA said it was dirtier than gasoline...but he chose to punish ng in the same bill...makes sense to you...right ict?

cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade didnt even pass, you guys are obsessed with it. Do you not realize that is a REPUBICAN idea? Do you really think people just forget? OH yeah, you on the right don't have to be consistant, just argue from one point to the next. You were for it before you were against it. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP



EPA reminds Republicans cap-and-trade used to be GOP idea — and it worked for acid rain

By John Solomon

11:23 pm, December 20, 2010 Updated: 3:37 pm, April 19, 2011

The Obama administration is turning the tables on Republican foes of climate regulation, demonstrating not only that cap-and-trade works — it significantly reduced acid rain — but that the program was started by one of their own, George H. W. Bush.

A 1990 revision of the Clean Air Act shepherded by the first President Bush imposed overall emission caps on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, the primary pollutants contributing to acid rain, and then let industries trade allowances to meet their business needs.
The program has been extremely successful, the Environmental Protection Agency reported Monday. Power plants decreased emissions of sulfur dioxide to 5.7 million tons in 2009, a 64 percent drop from 1990 levels and well below the targeted cuts envisioned when the law was passed and then implemented starting in 1995.

The agency added that the law had saved $120 billion in pollution and health costs, about 40 times the estimated cost.

“The program’s success has demonstrated that market-based trading systems can cost-effectively reduce pollution and address environmental damage,” the EPA declared in a report released just a few short weeks before Republicans who oppose a similar cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases take control of the House.

The administration is bracing for an onslaught of attacks by conservative climate science critics and industries who oppose the EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases from large emitters starting in January.

Critics, including Democrats such as West Virginia Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin, argue the new regulations could put American energy producers at a disadvantage and hurt the economic recovery. Rockefeller is proposing the rules be delayed by two years but his plan has yet to get a vote in the Senate.

The EPA’s report, however, gives ammunition to supporters of greenhouse gas regulations, who now can argue that companies face little harm and the environment benefits from caps on pollution when combined with allowances for trading. The report also reminds Americans that the idea of cap-and-trade originated with Republicans during the elder Bush’s years and was passed overwhelmingly by Congress.

[ictsooner7]

This is a completely phrenic interpretation of history and what was happening.
The Repugs of late have been pressing for an end to ethanol subsidies!
You know, there was one of those MANY Bills passed by the House, that never was allowed to come to the floor in Harry Reid's Senate!
That is why Obama made them a target in his budget.
Just like Military cuts....an easy target!

Cuts in the miliatary? You mean decreases in the increase of military spending.

OMB officials provided us with a document that shows a very modest increase in real terms over 10 years, if you count from 2013. But the numbers look worse if you include 2012. We included the nominal numbers in brackets to demonstrate the impact of inflation.

2012: $538 billion

2013: $525.4 billion [525.4]

2014: $525.1 billion [533.6]

2015: $527.8 billion [545.9]

2016: $528.0 billion [555.9]

2017: $529.3 billion [567.3]

2018: $530.9 billion [579.3]

2019: $533.3 billion [592.4]

2020: $535.4 billion [605.4]

2021: $536.8 billion [617.9]

2022: $541.2 billion [634.2]

[pphilfran]

Cuts in the miliatary? You mean decreases in the increase of military spending.

OMB officials provided us with a document that shows a very modest increase in real terms over 10 years, if you count from 2013. But the numbers look worse if you include 2012. We included the nominal numbers in brackets to demonstrate the impact of inflation.

2012: $538 billion

2013: $525.4 billion [525.4]

2014: $525.1 billion [533.6]

2015: $527.8 billion [545.9]

2016: $528.0 billion [555.9]

2017: $529.3 billion [567.3]

2018: $530.9 billion [579.3]

2019: $533.3 billion [592.4]

2020: $535.4 billion [605.4]

2021: $536.8 billion [617.9]

2022: $541.2 billion [634.2]

Where did you find those numbers? They don't jive with what is in the budget....

Table 3.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[East Coast Bias]

A question for Phil and Okie. I defer to you guys as the experts in oil and gas, clarify some of this for me? I think there is a lot of noise around the whole oil/gas issue. I think Okla/Texas/La have a huge dependence on oil/gas in their economy, almost to the point that the Indian culture was fashioned around the buffalo. Every President's stated goal since Reagan has been to reduce/eliminate the dependency on oil. The answer I hear from this site is produce more and drill more. I know Solendra was a mistake, but is it wrong to try and develope other energy sources for the LONG TERM? I have read that gasoline would be priced at around $14 a gallon without all the subsidies, so are we getting real market influence here? And I understand how important NG is, but is this really considered "clean energy"? Obama says those who say drill more and produce more don't understand the problem. Is he right? And yes I am a liberal, but am no expert on energy, just trying to work through the rhetoric and static for clarity.. I am open to the idea that Obama is missing the boat here, but maybe he is just taking a different approach to the problem? Its hard to trust politicians on either side as they seem to all be in bed with the big oil companies.

[REDREX]

Arrogant??? I'M RIGHT, what did I show you that is wrong? BUSH dropped the unit, in secret, and Obama made it a priority. LEADERSHIP.


You live in a parallel universe.--- I am told to learn history from a person that said GM paid all the money back to the Gov't with interest----and then posted an article that said they did not---nice try

[pphilfran]

A question for Phil and Okie. I defer to you guys as the experts in oil and gas, clarify some of this for me? I think there is a lot of noise around the whole oil/gas issue. I think Okla/Texas/La have a huge dependence on oil/gas in their economy, almost to the point that the Indian culture was fashioned around the buffalo. Every President's stated goal since Reagan has been to reduce/eliminate the dependency on oil. The answer I hear from this site is produce more and drill more. I know Solendra was a mistake, but is it wrong to try and develope other energy sources for the LONG TERM? I have read that gasoline would be priced at around $14 a gallon without all the subsidies, so are we getting real market influence here? And I understand how important NG is, but is this really considered "clean energy"? Obama says those who say drill more and produce more don't understand the problem. Is he right? And yes I am a liberal, but am no expert on energy, just trying to work through the rhetoric and static for clarity.. I am open to the idea that Obama is missing the boat here, but maybe he is just taking a different approach to the problem? Its hard to trust politicians on either side as they seem to all be in bed with the big oil companies.

I am anything but an expert on oil and gas....

Past/current administrations did/do not have a true plan to reduce our reliance on imported oil...

There are two separate and distinct issues....global warming and the possible added effect of CO2, and energy independence...

Anything related to electrical production is strictly CO2 related...nukes, hydro, wind, and solar do nothing to help our crude energy dependence..though, at a price, they can reduce our dependence on coal and CO2 emissions...imo there is nothing that is actually clean about "Clean Coal"....

There are several means to lower our reliance on crude...

We have electric cars and plug in hybrids...hybrids have a solid footing but true electrics are still far too expensive....the electricity for these electric cars can come from any energy sources...the power grid will probably need an overhaul to meet the future demand for the next 20 or 30 years...and that won't be easy...Solyndra if it had been successful would not have saved one drop of imported crude...

Speaking of Soly...the fed should not be in the venture capital business....they have little or no expertise in the field and should not be picking companies on an individual basis...there may have been a better company in the works that could not compete with Solyndra and it's cheap fed loans so they never got past the discovery stage...pick the sector you want to grow and give tax incentives to the companies that are successful in the field...the risk stays the same but the possible reward is greater so more money should flow into the most viable companies...

We also have ng....it is dirtier than electricity (there is some debate) but far less expensive...it would be a large, but relatively simple mod to new vehicles (storage tank size/shape is a problem)...the infrastructure would take time to put into place...

Fuel cells are decades out...

Direct injection diesel is also a viable option but the fed tax rate is higher on diesel than gas so that tends to limit it's appeal...better mileage than gas and similar emissions with cutting edge technology...

Higher fuel prices will move demand to more efficient vehicle...to me CAFE standards are secondary....

So those are are choices for the transportation fleet...

imo here is what needs to happen...

First 10 years

Keep demand stable...the higher fuel prices and more efficient vehicles should be able to make this happen...

Keep US base crude at current levels or slightly higher over the next decade or two...new tech is making that happen...peak oil has been shoved shoved into the future...few saw this happening 10 years ago...

Boost ng consumption by building fueling stations (Chesapeake Plan)...we should be able to get 10% or so of gas swapped over to ng within 10 years...that would help boost ng prices from current severely low levels and should spur even more exploration since it would be more profitable...

I would lower the diesel tax and raise the gas tax slowly...


Beyond 10 years

Electrics should be much more price competitive and will be taking market share away from gas vehicles...so from 2020 to 2030 we should see demand fall due to expanded electric usage...

By 2030 hopefully fuel cells will be marketable...then we will not have to worry about nasty coal or ng plants or carbon based fuel for our vehicles...

Within 10 years smart policy using all available options would allow us to be damn close to crude independence...

[StoopTroup]

I think doubling NASAs budget would have had more of an impact than giving Solyndra money but I think folks miss the point about what Obama was trying to do with Solyndra. Now....should he have given them so much dough? IMO...no. But we do need to pour money into things that create think tanks. We can't continue to rely on Colleges and Universities only. Small Business can't do it. Corporations won't do it unless it makes money. I think if we continue to reduce the amount of Tax payer Dough into the things that NASA has a really great track record in producing that our Country will not only be decades behind other Countries but will be broke and no longer a Super Power. It was our involvement in the Space Race that developed all of the current technology that has changed all our lives tremendously in the last 50 years. We need to continue to train Scientists and the like or we are doomed.

[okie52]

cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade didnt even pass, you guys are obsessed with it. Do you not realize that is a REPUBICAN idea? Do you really think people just forget? OH yeah, you on the right don't have to be consistant, just argue from one point to the next. You were for it before you were against it. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP



Well, I'm glad you agree on all of the other horrible things Obama has done to energy since you have ignored them in your post.

Now as to cap and trade they are 2 different animals ICT...not that I expect you to get it.


The most popular way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is through a cap and trade program. President Obama and many policymakers support some form of this regulatory policy. Cap and trade aims to cap emissions of carbon dioxide at a politically-determined level and then have the users and producers of oil, coal, and natural gas buy, sell, and trade their allowance to emit a given amount of carbon dioxide. Cap and trade will increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas in an effort to force users to switch to other, less reliable, more expensive forms of energy.

These proposals are very, very costly and economically damaging. If enacted, last year’s flagship cap and trade proposal, the Lieberman-Warner bill, would increase the cost of gasoline by anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent and increase the cost of electricity by 77 to 129 percent.

Up to four million Americans would lose their jobs under the program, which amounts to a $4,022 to $6,752 loss in disposable income per household. In return, we could have expected a 63 percent emissions cut. President Obama’s budget proposes to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 83 percent. If successful, it’s reasonable to conclude it would lead to even greater economic hardship than envisioned under Lieberman-Warner.

Other problems inherent in cap and trade exist, and they are manifold. What follows is a brief explanation of some of the most glaring:

Reasons why Cap and Trade is a Bad Idea:
The point of cap and trade is to increase the price of energy. Cap and trade is designed to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in the United States. That is the point. For it to “work,” cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress last year that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program.”[1]

Cap and trade schemes for carbon dioxide have not worked to reduce emissions. Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) began in 2005. The first phase, from 2005 to2007, did not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, overall emissions increased 1.9 percent over that period.[2] The reason is simple: European politicians know that cap and trade is economically harmful and do not want these policies to cost more jobs, especially during these difficult economic times. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently stated that she would not allow EU climate regulations to go forward that would “take decisions that would endanger jobs or investments in Germany.”[3]
Cap and trade will harm the poor. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions would disproportionally harm the poor. A mere 15 percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions would cost the lowest-income Americans 3.3 percent of their income, but only 1.7 percent of the income of higher income households.[4] President Obama wants to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent, not a mere 15 percent. This will entail much greater economic sacrifice among those who have the least to spare.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/capandtradechart1.png


Cap and trade harms energy security. Some proponents of cap and trade claim that cap and trade will improve energy security. Unfortunately, this is exactly backwards—a cap and trade scheme will undermine and erode our nation’s energy security. When many people express concern about energy security, they are concerned about oil imported from foreign countries. They do not realize that domestically produced oil is our number one source of oil[5] and Canada is our number source of oil outside the U.S. During 2007, the last complete year for which data is available, only 17 percent of the oil we consumed came from the Middle East.[6]


But cap and trade will assess a heavy penalty on Canadian oil. Much of the oil we get comes from its vast reserves of oil sands. Because it requires more energy to extract the resources from those sands than it does to produce oil in the Middle East, cap and trade will make Canadian oil more expensive than oil from the Middle East.

Cap and trade, therefore, creates incentives to import more oil from the Middle East, not less. Cap and trade also penalizes domestic oil extraction from oil shale. In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, estimates suggest that 800 billion barrels of oil resources are ready to be produced.[7] For a sense of scale, that’s more than three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia has in its reserve. Also, the U.S. has the world’s largest coal reserves.[8] At current usage rates, we have 200-250 years of demonstrated coal reserves.[9] Coal-to-liquids could give the U.S. much larger reserves of petroleum fuels.

Cap and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions is not comparable to cap and trade for carbon dioxide. Proponents of cap and trade point to the sulfur dioxide program as an example of how easy and effective it would be to institute an economy-wide cap and trade program for CO2. But sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions are not comparable. When the sulfur dioxide program started, it targeted only 110 coal-fired power plants. Later, it was expanded to 445 power plants.[10] Greenhouse gas emissions are released from millions of sources, including electricity production, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, home furnaces, fertilizer production, farm animals, and millions of other sources, including humans. Regulating millions of different and individual sources of emissions is considerably different from regulating 445 plants.

Also, many low-cost sulfur dioxide control options existed when the program took effect.[11] This is not the case with carbon dioxide control technologies. There are no control technologies that are commercially available at commercially-competitive prices. One way to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions was to use “low-sulfur coal” but there is no “low-carbon dioxide coal.”[12]

Indeed, the cost-effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to use less energy. But energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Energy allows us to do more work with less time and effort. As a result, there is a strong correlation between energy use and economic prosperity, as the chart below demonstrates:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/capandtradechart2.jpg



A domestic cap and trade program, even in the best case, can only produce marginal impacts on climate. In 2006, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.[13] But the difference in emission growth rates is striking. According to data from the Global Carbon Project, from 2000 through 2007 global total greenhouse gas emissions increased 26 percent. During that same period, China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased 98 percent, India’s increased 36 percent and Russia’s increased 10 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States increased by three percent from 2000 through 2007.[14] These data are displayed in the graphic below:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/capandtradechart3.png




As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,[15] which makes unilateral efforts— such as a domestic cap and trade program—an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years.[16] If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years.[17] Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States.

A domestic cap and trade program will force more industries to leave America. Energy costs are a major expenditure for heavy industry. America’s natural gas prices are the highest in the world,[18] even though we have the world’s sixth largest proven natural gas reserves.[19] The high price of natural gas has significantly contributed to the loss of more than 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000.[20] Cap and trade taxes will drive up the cost of natural gas because companies would use it as a substitute for coal in electricity production, which means increased electricity costs for industry and the individual. This is especially troublesome for chemical companies, all of which use natural gas not only as an energy source, but also as a feedstock. Higher natural gas prices will force them to pursue options offshore and overseas, reducing American jobs.


A cap that is set at the wrong level will cause great economic harm. Even the proponents of carbon taxes, such as Yale University Professor William Nordaus, find that once there is deviation from worldwide participation, the costs of achieving environmental global improvements dramatically rise. Nordhaus’ economic model shows that an overly ambitious and/or inefficiently structured policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted plan.[21] For example, Nordhaus’ optimal plan yields net benefits of $3 trillion ($5 trillion in reduced climatic damages and $2 trillion in abatement costs). Yet other popular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. Take for example former Vice President Al Gore’s 2007 proposal. It sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus’ model estimates this plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than if there were no controls on carbon dioxide.[22]

Cap and trade on a global basis with all countries participating wouldn't be all of that bad if REAL CARBON TAXES were used instead of the artificial ones used by Obama and it was globally verifiable and enforceable. Rewarding ethanol, making no mention of nukes, punishing NG while providing no viable alternative green energy source and only binding the US to carbon taxes was a suicidal plan for our energy and our economy.

[StoopTroup]

Condesending, Calling systems a scheme.....

Man...so angry.

Nobody listens to angry anymore. Angry gets their campaign signs torn up in their face.

[pphilfran]

There is no viable large scale carbon capture available...currently it takes a third of the electrical production to scrub the CO2...

And then where in the US do we bury a couple of cubic miles of highly compressed CO2 each year? And CO2 ain't got no half life so you better bury it good....

Cap and trade was a scheme...take money from the efficient economy and give it to the poor up and coming China economy so they can limit their CO2 emissions...

[LiveLaughLove]

Condesending, Calling systems a scheme.....

Man...so angry.

Nobody listens to angry anymore. Angry gets their campaign signs torn up in their face.

So the people that went to listen to Santorum, and couldn't because of the screaming disrupters were angry? But the people that went there to purposefully try and drown him and his audience out were? Cool? OK? Thomas Paine types?

Fascinating that you would point out the sign holders and not the actual disrupters that caused it.

[okie52]

A question for Phil and Okie. I defer to you guys as the experts in oil and gas, clarify some of this for me? I think there is a lot of noise around the whole oil/gas issue. I think Okla/Texas/La have a huge dependence on oil/gas in their economy, almost to the point that the Indian culture was fashioned around the buffalo. Every President's stated goal since Reagan has been to reduce/eliminate the dependency on oil. The answer I hear from this site is produce more and drill more. I know Solendra was a mistake, but is it wrong to try and develope other energy sources for the LONG TERM? I have read that gasoline would be priced at around $14 a gallon without all the subsidies, so are we getting real market influence here? And I understand how important NG is, but is this really considered "clean energy"? Obama says those who say drill more and produce more don't understand the problem. Is he right? And yes I am a liberal, but am no expert on energy, just trying to work through the rhetoric and static for clarity.. I am open to the idea that Obama is missing the boat here, but maybe he is just taking a different approach to the problem? Its hard to trust politicians on either side as they seem to all be in bed with the big oil companies.

No expert East Coast...just another fool with an opinion.


A large part of that gas priced at $14 a gallon was the cost of our military defending our oil interests around the world...particularly the ME. Energy independence would greatly reduce that cost.

Obama is an ideologue regarding green energy. He has sought to punish NG during the 1st 3 years of his administration but now, in an election year, publicly embraces it. Obama stated in his state of the union address that we have a 100 year supply of NG. I have heard double that. Yet he has so far tried to punish ng under cap and trade, fights to remove oil and gas company writeoffs, has banned drilling off both the Atlantic and Pacific, and constantly has the EPA pursue hydraulic fracking. Obama doesn't really like NG even though it is easily the fastest and cleanest way to achieve energy independence in the short term. Low NG prices retard his green energy growth and NG prices are very low right now. But, low NG prices also helps fuel an economic rebound because our businesses/manufacturers are able to use those low prices to a competitive advantage. So much so that we see incredible positions like
this:


There are several political challenges, including legislation introduced on Feb. 14 by U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). He introduced two bills in the House of Representatives aimed at stopping LNG exports.

The Republican-controlled House will likely oppose Markey’s legislation in the face of current excess natural gas supply that is causing some companies to curtail drilling plans.

Even with the bills filed on Valentine’s Day, there is no love lost between Markey and the oil and gas industry. He is highly critical of the petroleum industry.

The first bill he introduced would stop the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from approving any LNG export facilities until 2025. The second bill would not allow exports of any domestic gas drilled on federal lands and would ban any pipelines that cross federal lands from delivering natural gas to the liquefaction plants. This would mean that no natural gas from federal waters offshore could be exported.

“Low natural gas prices are a competitive advantage for American businesses and a relief for American families,” Markey said. “Exporting our natural gas would eliminate our economic edge and impose new costs on consumers.”

So far, the only LNG exports that have received Department of Energy approval would be to the 15 countries that have free trade agreements with the U.S.

If you don't recognize Ed Markey's name he was the cosponsor of the cap and trade bill that passed the house in 2009 and sought to punish NG and raise everyone's utility bills. Now, he describes it as a competitive advantage and wants to deny the oil and gas industry the opportunity to sell its products internationally. This hypocrisy and conflicting strategies is why a pragmatic approach must be taken towards energy independence and leave the ideologues behind. (this hypocrisy and hate for the oil and gas industry will be lost on ICT) Of course if it was "green energy" that was being exported then Obama and Markey would be all for it. You know, jobs, jobs, jobs and the US being at the forefront of green energy.

I am for all energy sources being utilized to become energy independent. To me there is no greater issue facing the nation than energy independence. I'll repeat myself over and over regarding the benefits of exploration to achieve energy independence. That doesn't mean to exclude any energy source. Unlike Obama that says he is for using all energy sources the facts don't prove him out and, certainly in the oil and gas industry, his claim for the success of the oil and gas industry during his term is laughable.

If we were really using "all of the above" for achieving energy independence Obama wouldn't be blocking access to our vast reserves that exist off of our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. That alone should make anyone question Obama's desire for "energy independence". Price has very little to do with energy independence and often the two terms are contained in the same discussion and the value of energy independence is lost in the debate. Energy independence is much more important than price of gasoline. It may not seem that way to the consumer at the gas pump but it really is. This is where that $14 a gallon comes back into play. You've probably seen me state this before but for this conversation I'll restate it again:

Thousands of jobs are created by oil and gas exploration...many times greater than any green energy project.

Over 1/2 of our trade deficit is due to imported oil. Every barrel of oil we produce here in the states reduces that deficit.

The government would receive billions in royalties for its struggling treasury from oil and gas drilling on federal lands onshore and offshore.

The Government would receive billions in additional tax revenues from corporate and individual taxes (and production taxes in some cases) by wells drilled here in the US (onshore and offshore).

The government would receive billions in lease bonus money from leasing federal lands onshore and offshore.

Our Foreign policy and military being liberated from defending our oil interests in the ME.

More nukes should also be added to our energy grid and licensing should be streamlined so that it doesn't take over 30 years to get a nuke licensed.

To give Obama credit here he has pushed for conservation and gotten some through...such as higher mpg vehicles and building efficiencies.

I understand Obama doesn't want oil and gas to succeed because it will deny him his green energy because, frankly, it just can't compete. But I do support R & D for green energy and hope for a breakthrough in the future (even though it would harm my industry)and when that breakthrough arrives I will support its implementation in our energy grid.

Just to reiterate, drilling in the US will not greatly affect oil prices and any drilling offshore will be about 5 years from drawing board to production which is why these delays and/or bans are all the more maddening. If Obama is elected again you can count on the Atlantic and Pacific reserves not producing until at least 2021 and probably longer even if a repub were elected in 2016.

We could achieve energy independence just by switching most of our transportation to NG. And, if that happened, we might actually see lower prices at the pump because NG is historically cheaper than gasoline. But that isn't the main target. Energy independence should always be the target.

[soonercruiser]

Wrong again Okie,

But there's a nearer-term battle brewing over corn-based ethanol. A 2005 law requires that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be produced by 2012 -- 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011.


President Barack Obama did not ask Congress to extend ethanol subsidies in his budget request for FY 2012.

The subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2011 and would cost more than $6 billion to extend for one year.

The bill that extended Bush-era tax cuts last year also including a provision to extend subsidies for corn ethanol — and divert even more corn to our fuel supplies at a time when federal ethanol mandates already consume more than 40 percent of the corn crop.


It was the REPUBLICANS who wanted it to grow. Obama did support them in 2010, but now has let them expire. Once again, a republican program, Obamas fault.

And YOU are trying to teach Okie something about energy????
:playful:

[dwarthog]

Well Okie, you spoke too soon it would appear.


EPA heightens scrutiny over natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania

Read more: http://newsok.com/epa-heightens-scrutiny-over-natural-gas-drilling-in-pennsylvania/article/3654965#ixzz1oMN9b9lx

[okie52]

Well Okie, you spoke too soon it would appear.



Read more: http://newsok.com/epa-heightens-scrutiny-over-natural-gas-drilling-in-pennsylvania/article/3654965#ixzz1oMN9b9lx

Spoke too soon? I have been saying that Obama has been pushing the EPA in this direction for quite some time.

Amazingly thousands of wells drilled and no history problems due to fracking...He11 OK is already proof of that for over 60 years but now the EPA needs to investigate over the objections of the PA authorites. Obama is behind this all of the way.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

We also have ng....it is dirtier than electricity (there is some debate) but far less expensive...it would be a large, but relatively simple mod to new vehicles (storage tank size/shape is a problem)...the infrastructure would take time to put into place...


Why would ng be dirtier than electricity since electricity is mostly generated by either ng or coal? Is burning ng to create electricity more efficient than burning it to heat water or your home?

[ictsooner7]

And YOU are trying to teach Okie something about energy????
:playful:

I'm trying to teach about the truth.

[pphilfran]

Why would ng be dirtier than electricity since electricity is mostly generated by either ng or coal? Is burning ng to create electricity more efficient than burning it to heat water or your home?

My bad...dirtier than renewable electricity but less costly....

[dwarthog]

Spoke too soon? I have been saying that Obama has been pushing the EPA in this direction for quite some time.

Amazingly thousands of wells drilled and no history problems due to fracking...He11 OK is already proof of that for over 60 years but now the EPA needs to investigate over the objections of the PA authorites. Obama is behind this all of the way.

Sorry, didn't catch that part. Just going by the thread title one could be led to believe that Obama and his lackeys had thrown in the towel on this one.

[ictsooner7]

Spoke too soon? I have been saying that Obama has been pushing the EPA in this direction for quite some time.

Amazingly thousands of wells drilled and no history problems due to fracking...He11 OK is already proof of that for over 60 years but now the EPA needs to investigate over the objections of the PA authorites. Obama is behind this all of the way.

So...................Obama called up the EPA and told them to get to PA and shut down drilling? Maybe they are following the law. Maybe people in PA don't want to drink waste water. OH I'm sorry, that doesn't support the talking point how Obama is killing the gas and oil industry.


EPA is charged by law with protecting and ensuring the safety of the nation's drinking water, but it has largely allowed the states to take the lead on rules and enforcement as energy companies drilled and fracked tens of thousands of new wells in recent years.

In Pennsylvania, that began to change last spring after The Associated Press and other news organizations reported that huge volumes of partially treated wastewater were being discharged into rivers and streams that supply drinking water. EPA asked the state to boost its monitoring of fracking wastewater from gas wells, and the state declared a voluntary moratorium for drillers that led to significant reductions of Marcellus waste. Yet a loophole in the policy allows operators of many older oil and gas wells to continue discharging significant amounts of wastewater into treatment plants, and thus, into rivers.

[okie52]

Sorry, didn't catch that part. Just going by the thread title one could be led to believe that Obama and his lackeys had thrown in the towel on this one.

Yeah, I used the article's title which could be misleading in some areas. The point of the article was that oil and gas has survived and even grown in spite of Obama's attempts to curtail it.

[ictsooner7]

Yeah, I used the article's title which could be misleading in some areas. The point of the article was that oil and gas has survived and even grown in spite of Obama's attempts to curtail it.

Just keep making sh!t up.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a schedule to develop standards for wastewater discharges produced by natural gas extraction from underground coalbed and shale formations. No comprehensive set of national standards exists at this time for the disposal of wastewater discharged from natural gas extraction activities, and over the coming months EPA will begin the process of developing a proposed standard with the input of stakeholders – including industry and public health groups. Today’s announcement is in line with the priorities identified in the president’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, and is consistent with the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recommendations on steps to support the safe development of natural gas resources.

"The president has made clear that natural gas has a central role to play in our energy economy. That is why we are taking steps — in coordination with our federal partners and informed by the input of industry experts, states and public health organizations — to make sure the needs of our energy future are met safely and responsibly,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "We can protect the health of American families and communities at the same time we ensure access to all of the important resources that make up our energy economy. The American people expect and deserve nothing less."

Recent technology and operational improvements in extracting natural gas resources, particularly shale gas, have increased gas drilling activities across the country. Production from shale formations has grown from a negligible amount just a few years ago to almost 15 percent of total U.S. natural gas production and this share is expected to triple in the coming decades. The sharp rise in domestic production has improved U.S. energy security and created jobs, and as with any resource the administration is committed to ensuring that we continue to leverage these resources safely and responsibly, including understanding any potential impact on water resources.(1)

[Curly Bill]

Does anyone else think ict is a troll for KC//Crimson?

[olevetonahill]

Does anyone else think ict is a troll for KC//Crimson?

Im still waitin fer him to explain his comment about oil being 85 bucks a barrel.

Until he does that every thing he says Is nothing but garbage

[Curly Bill]

Im still waitin fer him to explain his comment about oil being 85 bucks a barrel.

Until he does that every thing he says Is nothing but garbage

Already reached that conclusion. No one is as stupid as ict seems to be, that's why I wonder if he/it isn't someone's totally over the top troll??

[Mississippi Sooner]

I just had a gas boom that Obama couldn't kill. Damn near killed me, though.

[olevetonahill]

Already reached that conclusion. No one is as stupid as ict seems to be, that's why I wonder if he/it isn't someone's totally over the top troll??

True, He sure do like his Charts and Graphs and **** to Prove NOTHING

[Mississippi Sooner]

I think this pie chart will prove my point.

http://interactiondesign.sva.edu/classes/datavisualization/files/2010/07/pie_eaten.jpg

[Curly Bill]

Yummmmmm.....pie!

[olevetonahill]

I think this pie chart will prove my point.

http://interactiondesign.sva.edu/classes/datavisualization/files/2010/07/pie_eaten.jpg

Thats a hell of a lot better than any of Ickys Charts

[okie52]

So...................Obama called up the EPA and told them to get to PA and shut down drilling? Maybe they are following the law. Maybe people in PA don't want to drink waste water.


EPA is charged by law with protecting and ensuring the safety of the nation's drinking water, but it has largely allowed the states to take the lead on rules and enforcement as energy companies drilled and fracked tens of thousands of new wells in recent years.

In Pennsylvania, that began to change last spring after The Associated Press and other news organizations reported that huge volumes of partially treated wastewater were being discharged into rivers and streams that supply drinking water. EPA asked the state to boost its monitoring of fracking wastewater from gas wells, and the state declared a voluntary moratorium for drillers that led to significant reductions of Marcellus waste. Yet a loophole in the policy allows operators of many older oil and gas wells to continue discharging significant amounts of wastewater into treatment plants, and thus, into rivers.

A lot of the current EPA are Obama appointees. Seems the PA officials don't appreciate their intrusion.

Even this is not really about fracking in the subsurface sense. It is about disposal of wastewater. If some contractor is taking a short cut to dispose of fluids then he should be held accountable.

[okie52]

Just keep making sh!t up.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a schedule to develop standards for wastewater discharges produced by natural gas extraction from underground coalbed and shale formations. No comprehensive set of national standards exists at this time for the disposal of wastewater discharged from natural gas extraction activities, and over the coming months EPA will begin the process of developing a proposed standard with the input of stakeholders – including industry and public health groups. Today’s announcement is in line with the priorities identified in the president’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, and is consistent with the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recommendations on steps to support the safe development of natural gas resources.

"The president has made clear that natural gas has a central role to play in our energy economy. That is why we are taking steps — in coordination with our federal partners and informed by the input of industry experts, states and public health organizations — to make sure the needs of our energy future are met safely and responsibly,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "We can protect the health of American families and communities at the same time we ensure access to all of the important resources that make up our energy economy. The American people expect and deserve nothing less."

Recent technology and operational improvements in extracting natural gas resources, particularly shale gas, have increased gas drilling activities across the country. Production from shale formations has grown from a negligible amount just a few years ago to almost 15 percent of total U.S. natural gas production and this share is expected to triple in the coming decades. The sharp rise in domestic production has improved U.S. energy security and created jobs, and as with any resource the administration is committed to ensuring that we continue to leverage these resources safely and responsibly, including understanding any potential impact on water resources.(1)

More blather. Obama saying it doesn't mean sheet when his actions are contradictory to it.

How about those coast lines ICT?

Got a defense for that or does it show Obama is for oil and gas exploration?

[olevetonahill]

Hey Icky, You ever gonna defend yer idiotic post about oil being only 85 bucks?

Or just pout?

[ictsooner7]

More blather. Obama saying it doesn't mean sheet when his actions are contradictory to it.

How about those coast lines ICT?

Got a defense for that or does it show Obama is for oil and gas exploration?

I see you work for oil and gas industry, you must work for Koch.

[REDREX]

I see you work for oil and gas industry, you must work for Koch.---What do you know about Koch ?----Not some cut and paste but what do you know?-----If the Country was run as efficiently as Koch Industries we would have a lot fewer problems

[okie52]

I see you work for oil and gas industry, you must work for Koch.

Another dodge there Icky? No defense for Obama shutting down the coasts?

Try not being an Obama stooge for indefensible positions. You might gain some credibility.

[LiveLaughLove]

I see you work for oil and gas industry, you must work for Koch.

Ah the new boogie men for the left. It used to be Richard Mellon Scaife, now it's the evil Koch Brothers. LOL.

How many jobs have they created vs you? Just curious.

[ictsooner7]

Another dodge there Icky? No defense for Obama shutting down the coasts?

Try not being an Obama stooge for indefensible positions. You might gain some credibility.

Obama stooge? that is laughable, you and yours just spew right wing talking points. That is the point about working for Koch. What do I know about Koch, I love three miles from him, stole oil from indians and the federal government and sold goods to Iran. Thats what i know. I also know that facts don't lie, look at the chart AGAIN, oil production going UP not down. How is he killing when it is going UP?

[OU_Sooners75]

Nice personal insult.

You are so right, debt being tripled under reagan, democrats fault, bush I doubling it again doesn't count, longest peacetime economic expansion under clinton, reagan did it,balanced budget, republicans, 9/11 clintons fault, economic meltdown 2007 clinton again, bush II doubling the debt, obamas fault, bin laden dead, bush, unemployment obama. Do I have it right?

Seems to me you need to get the sand out of your vagina. I mean, only a smilie and a goofy video shows it was a playful gesture.

Anyway....

Here is a good factoid for you....something that isn't made up...While you are hounding republicans (btw, I think all politicians are the same no matter if they have (D) or (R) next to their name).....chew on this:

National Debt:
01/21/2009 10,625,053,544,309.79 (The day after Obama's inauguration)
03/05/2012 15,491,983,252,196.46 (Yesterday)

So in 3 years, 1 month and 2 weeks in office, Obama has presided over a debt that has increased:
$4,866,929,707,886.67


Lets compare this to George W. Bush
01/22/2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

In 8 years George W. Bush presided over a debt that increased:
$4,898,681,252,731.51

In other words, Bush may have doubled the debt, that part you are correct. However, under his watch...in 8 YEARS, the debt only grew just under $32 billion more than what it has grown under Obama.

Please, keep in mind that Obama has served for just over 3 years, while Bush served for 8.

So statistics say if Obama is elected to a second term and he does not drastically cut his spending, he will have grown the debt to nearly $20,000,000,000,000...

So Obama is on pace to yet again have the national debt doubled if he is elected to a second term.


And as far as peacetime under Clinton...I suppose you forgot about Serbia and the involvement the US had in stopping the ethnic cleansing. Or did you forget about Somalia?

Clinton may not have had full scale wars, but he was far from never sending troops into harms way or exacting the US military might where it was needed.

[okie52]

Obama stooge? that is laughable, you and yours just spew right wing talking points. That is the point about working for Koch. What do I know about Koch, I love three miles from him, stole oil from indians and the federal government and sold goods to Iran. Thats what i know. I also know that facts don't lie, look at the chart AGAIN, oil production going UP not down. How is he killing when it is going UP?

Still dodging the question Icky. Now you are off on Koch which has nothing to do with the issue.

Obama shutting down both coasts and their vast reserves a talking point or a fact?

[OU_Sooners75]

Bush allowed the CIA unit that was dedicated to searching for bin Laden to disband. Obama restarted it and killed bin Laden, cleaning up yet another failure of the most incompentent president in our history. Try to learn history or stop lying about it. parallel universe

CIA disbands Bin laden unit

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

The Guardian, Tuesday 4 July 2006 13.23 EDT
Article history


Nearly five years after George Bush vowed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice "dead or alive", it's the end of the line for the CIA's Alec Station, the unit dedicated to the hunt for the al-Qaida leader.

The unit, named after the son of a counter-terror official, was disbanded last year, it emerged this week, and its agents reassigned in what intelligence officials described as a recognition of the changing nature of al-Qaida.

Obama said that after he entered the White House in 2009, he had ordered CIA director Leon Panetta to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the "top priority of our war against al Qaeda." Then, in August, he was briefed on "a possible lead" to the elusive terrorist's hiding place. "It took many months to run this thread to ground," he said.

By Friday, a senior White House official said, the evidence had become sufficiently certain that Obama was able to give the go-ahead for the operation.

After years of rumors that the world's most-wanted man was hiding in the caves and rugged redoubts of the Pakistan- Afghanistan border region, the CIA ultimately found him hiding in what officials described as a comfortable mansion surrounded by a high wall in a small town near Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.

On Sunday, a "small team" of Americans raided the compound. After a firefight, the president said, they killed Bin Laden. No Americans were injured in the raid.

You say this with such certainty like you were there.

Got Proof?

[OU_Sooners75]

Why didn't bush stop bin Laden after he was WARNED he wanted to attack America?

Why didn't Clinton when he knew where he was after the USS Cole bombing?

[ictsooner7]

You say this with such certainty like you were there.

Got Proof?

It's from two seperate articles. I don't make sh!t up and post it as fact like the right does.

[diverdog]

Seems to me you need to get the sand out of your vagina. I mean, only a smilie and a goofy video shows it was a playful gesture.

Anyway....

Here is a good factoid for you....something that isn't made up...While you are hounding republicans (btw, I think all politicians are the same no matter if they have (D) or (R) next to their name).....chew on this:

National Debt:
01/21/2009 10,625,053,544,309.79 (The day after Obama's inauguration)
03/05/2012 15,491,983,252,196.46 (Yesterday)

So in 3 years, 1 month and 2 weeks in office, Obama has presided over a debt that has increased:
$4,866,929,707,886.67


Lets compare this to George W. Bush
01/22/2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

In 8 years George W. Bush presided over a debt that increased:
$4,898,681,252,731.51

In other words, Bush may have doubled the debt, that part you are correct. However, under his watch...in 8 YEARS, the debt only grew just under $32 billion more than what it has grown under Obama.

Please, keep in mind that Obama has served for just over 3 years, while Bush served for 8.

So statistics say if Obama is elected to a second term and he does not drastically cut his spending, he will have grown the debt to nearly $20,000,000,000,000...

So Obama is on pace to yet again have the national debt doubled if he is elected to a second term.


And as far as peacetime under Clinton...I suppose you forgot about Serbia and the involvement the US had in stopping the ethnic cleansing. Or did you forget about Somalia?

Clinton may not have had full scale wars, but he was far from never sending troops into harms way or exacting the US military might where it was needed.



Anyone who would have been elected to office after GWB including a Republican would have seen sustained debts in excess of a trillion dollars per year. Prove to me otherwise that I am wrong.

[diverdog]

Why didn't Clinton when he knew where he was after the USS Cole bombing?

Who are you talking about?

[olevetonahill]

It's from two seperate articles. I don't make sh!t up and post it as fact like the right does.

"The trend may not continue, however. Oil prices have fallen to about $85 a barrel in recent weeks, down sharply from their highs of well over $100 a barrel last spring. The drop won’t make companies stop drilling, but lower prices combined with higher costs could be enough to slow the rig count’s rapid rise."

Really?

[LiveLaughLove]

Anyone who would have been elected to office after GWB including a Republican would have seen sustained debts in excess of a trillion dollars per year. Prove to me otherwise that I am wrong.

It's Bushes fault!

I seem to recall Obama wanting a whole bunch of stimulus money as political crony payouts disguised as job creation (you remember those shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready). I think the debt would have been lower without that. Just sayin'.

[REDREX]

"The trend may not continue, however. Oil prices have fallen to about $85 a barrel in recent weeks, down sharply from their highs of well over $100 a barrel last spring. The drop won’t make companies stop drilling, but lower prices combined with higher costs could be enough to slow the rig count’s rapid rise."

Really?---I'am a buyer at $85

[okie52]

I guess Icky can't find a line to regurgitate about shutting down our coasts being good for energy independence.

Icky, this article is just for you to give you a little insight to the energy fraud named Obama:





How North Dakota Became Saudi Arabia

Harold Hamm, discoverer of the Bakken fields of the northern Great Plains, on America's oil future and why OPEC's days are numbered. .

By STEPHEN MOORE

Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, is a man who thinks big. He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be "completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century."

"President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy," he adds. We can't come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into "green energy" sources like wind and solar, he argues. It has to come from oil and gas.

You'd expect an oilman to make the "drill, baby, drill" pitch. But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation's fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: "No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels."

If he's right, that'll double America's proven oil reserves. "Bakken is almost twice as big as the oil reserve in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," he continues. According to Department of Energy data, North Dakota is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years. Mr. Hamm explains over lunch in Washington, D.C., that the more his company drills, the more oil it finds. Continental Resources has seen its "proved reserves" of oil and natural gas (mostly in North Dakota) skyrocket to 421 million barrels this summer from 118 million barrels in 2006.

"We expect our reserves and production to triple over the next five years." And for those who think this oil find is only making Mr. Hamm rich, he notes that today in America "there are 10 million royalty owners across the country" who receive payments for the oil drilled on their land. "The wealth is being widely shared."

One reason for the renaissance has been OPEC's erosion of market power. "For nearly 50 years in this country nobody looked for oil here and drilling was in steady decline. Every time the domestic industry picked itself up, the Saudis would open the taps and drown us with cheap oil," he recalls. "They had unlimited production capacity, and company after company would go bust."


Today OPEC's market share is falling and no longer dictates the world price. This is huge, Mr. Hamm says. "Finally we have an opportunity to go out and explore for oil and drill without fear of price collapse." When OPEC was at its peak in the 1990s, the U.S. imported about two-thirds of its oil. Now we import less than half of it, and about 40% of what we do import comes from Mexico and Canada. That's why Mr. Hamm thinks North America can achieve oil independence.

The other reason for America's abundant supply of oil and natural gas has been the development of new drilling techniques. "Horizontal drilling" allows rigs to reach two miles into the ground and then spread horizontally by thousands of feet. Mr. Hamm was one of the pioneers of this method in the 1990s, and it has done for the oil industry what hydraulic fracturing has done for natural gas drilling in places like the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast. Both innovations have unlocked decades worth of new sources of domestic fossil fuels that previously couldn't be extracted at affordable cost.


Mr. Hamm's rags to riches success is the quintessential "only in America" story. He was the last of 13 kids, growing up in rural Oklahoma "the son of sharecroppers who never owned land." He didn't have money to go to college, so as a teenager he went to work in the oil fields and developed a passion. "I always wanted to find oil. It was always an irresistible calling."

He became a wildcat driller and his success rate became legendary in the industry. "People started to say I have ESP," he remarks. "I was fortunate, I guess. Next year it will be 45 years in the business."

Mr. Hamm ranks 33rd on the Forbes wealth list for America, but given the massive amount of oil that he owns, much still in the ground, and the dizzying growth of Continental's output and profits (up 34% last year alone), his wealth could rise above $20 billion and he could soon be rubbing elbows with the likes of Warren Buffett.

His only beef these days is with Washington. Mr. Hamm was invited to the White House for a "giving summit" with wealthy Americans who have pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charity. (He's given tens of millions of dollars already to schools like Oklahoma State and for diabetes research.) "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, they were all there," he recalls.

When it was Mr. Hamm's turn to talk briefly with President Obama, "I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this."

The president's reaction? "He turned to me and said, 'Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'" Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, "Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing."

Washington keeps "sticking a regulatory boot at our necks and then turns around and asks: 'Why aren't you creating more jobs,'" he says. He roils at the Interior Department delays of months and sometimes years to get permits for drilling. "These delays kill projects," he says. Even the Securities and Exchange Commission is now tightening the screws on the oil industry, requiring companies like Continental to report their production and federal royalties on thousands of individual leases under the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules. "I could go to jail because a local operator misreported the production in the field," he says.


The White House proposal to raise $40 billion of taxes on oil and gas—by excluding those industries from credits that go to all domestic manufacturers—is also a major hindrance to exploration and drilling. "That just stops the drilling," Mr. Hamm believes. "I've seen these things come about before, like [Jimmy] Carter's windfall profits tax." He says America's rig count on active wells went from 4,500 to less than 55 in a matter of months. "That was a dumb idea. Thank God, Reagan got rid of that."

A few months ago the Obama Justice Department brought charges against Continental and six other oil companies in North Dakota for causing the death of 28 migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Continental's crime was killing one bird "the size of a sparrow" in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail. "It's not even a rare bird. There're jillions of them," he explains. He says that "people in North Dakota are really outraged by these legal actions," which he views as "completely discriminatory" because the feds have rarely if ever prosecuted the Obama administration's beloved wind industry, which kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year.

Continental pleaded not guilty to the charges last week in federal court. For Mr. Hamm the whole incident is tantamount to harassment. "This shouldn't happen in America," he says. To him the case is further proof that Washington "is out to get us."

Mr. Hamm believes that if Mr. Obama truly wants more job creation, he should study North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.5%. He swears that number is overstated: "We can't find any unemployed people up there. The state has 18,000 unfilled jobs," Mr. Hamm insists. "And these are jobs that pay $60,000 to $80,000 a year." The economy is expanding so fast that North Dakota has a housing shortage. Thanks to the oil boom—Continental pays more than $50 million in state taxes a year—the state has a budget surplus and is considering ending income and property taxes.

It's hard to disagree with Mr. Hamm's assessment that Barack Obama has the energy story in America wrong. The government floods green energy—a niche market that supplies 2.5% of our energy needs—with billions of dollars of subsidies a year. "Wind isn't commercially feasible with natural gas prices below $6" per thousand cubic feet, notes Mr. Hamm. Right now its price is below $4. This may explain the administration's hostility to the fossil-fuel renaissance.

Mr. Hamm calculates that if Washington would allow more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, "I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties." That's more than the U.S. national debt, I say. He smiles.

This estimate sounds implausibly high, but Mr. Hamm has a lifelong habit of proving skeptics wrong. And even if he's wrong by half, it's a stunning number to think about. So this America-first energy story isn't just about jobs and economic revival. It's also about repairing America's battered balance sheet. Someone should get this man in front of the congressional deficit-reduction supercommittee.

Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

Funny how Hamm hasn't felt all of that help Obama supporters believe their man has given the oil and gas industry. And everyone knows energy independence is a top priority with Obama.

[OU_Sooners75]

Who are you talking about?

Maybe if you would stop obsessing over just my posts and read, then maybe, just maybe, you would get an idea.

That is all I am giving you.

[OU_Sooners75]

Anyone who would have been elected to office after GWB including a Republican would have seen sustained debts in excess of a trillion dollars per year. Prove to me otherwise that I am wrong.

I guess it is Bush's fault that Obama continues to use the blank check approach in spending?

I mean...I guess your thought is if the president before doesn't have a balanced budget, means the current president doesn't have too...or is it still Bush's fault that Obama doesn't even attempt to run a balanced budget? Is it Bush's fault now (over 3 years removed) that Obama continues the record spending?

I mean, I can see the distaste for Bush....but he has not been in the White House for over 3 years....but it's still his fault....


Gotcha!

When do we hold our President accountable instead of laying blame on his predecessor?

When is the Democrat led Senate going to do their job and pass a budget?

[ictsooner7]

I guess Icky can't find a line to regurgitate about shutting down our coasts being good for energy independence.

Icky, this article is just for you to give you a little insight to the energy fraud named Obama:

Funny how Hamm hasn't felt all of that help Obama supporters believe their man has given the oil and gas industry. And everyone knows energy independence is a top priority with Obama.

Harold Hamm, OILMAN, nice unbiased opinion, no wonder Harry wants the pipeline so bad. Look at what happened the last time oilmen took over our energy policy, production DROPPED, now harry is trying to blame Obama and it's going up, way up.



ARALLEL UNIVERSE




Harold Hamm (born December 11, 1945 in Lexington, Oklahoma) is an American oilman who was ranked in the March 2011 issue of Forbes as the 33rd richest person in America, with a net worth of $8.6 billion.[1] In 2012, presidental candidate Mitt Romney named Hamm as his energy advisor.[2] Hamm is a key player in Hiland Partners and Hiland Holdings[3] as well as the oil-exploration company Continental Resources, Oklahoma's fourth largest public company.[4][5][6] Continental Resources, which is currently operating out of the Continental Towers in Enid, Oklahoma will move to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 2012.[4] Hamm was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame in 2011.[7]

He worked his way up from pumping gas and car repair at Potter’s Corner in Enid[8] to becoming CEO of his own billion-dollar company. Harold Hamm has been the CEO of Continental Resources since 1967,[9] when the company was called Shelly Dean Oil Company.[10] Mr. Hamm and Continental Resources have been instrumental in developing the gigantic Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota.[11] He has five children and lives in Enid, Oklahoma.[12] Hamm holds honorary degrees from Northwestern Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma.[13] He is a graduate of Enid High School.[8] The Harold Hamm Diabetes Center at the University of Oklahoma was named after Hamm, who has battled diabetes.[13] Hamm's foundation, the Harold and Sue Ann Hamm Foundation donated 10 million dollars to create the center.[10]

[OU_Sooners75]

Diverdog...

A better question:

When are you Obama sympathizers going to hold him to the same standards (or criticize him) as you all have Bush?

You all seem to want your cake and to eat it too.

I could care less if Obama was a republican, independent, or democrat. My problem with him is that he talks a good game. He talks about how the government needs to slim down and cut spending...yet all he does is spend, spend, spend.

This isnt a repub vs dem, or right vs left issues on my part...this is the future of America issue on my part.

I voted for Obama. I voted for Bush once (Gore the first time). I voted for Clinton (both times).

I have a track record of voting for a democrat, but better than that, I vote for who I think (or thought at the time) would be better for America and me. Not party lines.

And finally, I am a registered democrat....so don't try to lump me into the right wing or conservative party!

[StoopTroup]

I guess Icky can't find a line to regurgitate about shutting down our coasts being good for energy independence.

Icky, this article is just for you to give you a little insight to the energy fraud named Obama:






Funny how Hamm hasn't felt all of that help Obama supporters believe their man has given the oil and gas industry. And everyone knows energy independence is a top priority with Obama.

I know rich folks would love to always buy low and sell high. Where did you dig that article up? The Oil n Gas Journal?

Did anyone ask the Obama Administration to respond to that? I just have a hard time digging deep into my soul to garner sympathy for something like that. The Oil n Gas is gonna be there forever if we find another source. If we can't find another source then we are going to have to use it. I just don't understand why Oil n Gas folks are wetting their pants. Are they going broke? Do they need the money to by more oil rich land?

[StoopTroup]

I guess it is Bush's fault that Obama continues to use the blank check approach in spending?

I mean...I guess your thought is if the president before doesn't have a balanced budget, means the current president doesn't have too...or is it still Bush's fault that Obama doesn't even attempt to run a balanced budget? Is it Bush's fault now (over 3 years removed) that Obama continues the record spending?

I mean, I can see the distaste for Bush....but he has not been in the White House for over 3 years....but it's still his fault....


Gotcha!

When do we hold our President accountable instead of laying blame on his predecessor?

When is the Democrat led Senate going to do their job and pass a budget?

We held our President accountable by not electing McCain in 2008.

Obama spend spend spend is an insane stmt. He's ended a War that was costing us over a billion dollars a day. To think he can turn around the mess the Bush Administration caused in 3 years is insane. Even the Bush and McCain folks knew we would suffer from the events after 9-11 and the Wars. You elected Obama. You need to stick with your man. The Republican led Grover Norquist led House has everything to do with what's happening in the Democratic Senate. Congress is at odds with each other and the house is holding up the President. Don't be fooled into thinking that the GOP we see running for office on Super Tuesday has the answers. I think the guy you elected deserves 4 more years just based on how well he has stuck to his guns about ending the War and killing Bin Laden. It's something I think he should get credit for doing.

[diverdog]

It's Bushes fault!

I seem to recall Obama wanting a whole bunch of stimulus money as political crony payouts disguised as job creation (you remember those shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready). I think the debt would have been lower without that. Just sayin'.

Yes his $800 billion added to the debt but that was half as much as the Bush tax cuts. The debt is being driven by a decline in tax revenue, more people retiring and seeking SS and medicare and the wars.

[diverdog]

Diverdog...

A better question:

When are you Obama sympathizers going to hold him to the same standards (or criticize him) as you all have Bush?

You all seem to want your cake and to eat it too.

I could care less if Obama was a republican, independent, or democrat. My problem with him is that he talks a good game. He talks about how the government needs to slim down and cut spending...yet all he does is spend, spend, spend.

This isnt a repub vs dem, or right vs left issues on my part...this is the future of America issue on my part.

I voted for Obama. I voted for Bush once (Gore the first time). I voted for Clinton (both times).

I have a track record of voting for a democrat, but better than that, I vote for who I think (or thought at the time) would be better for America and me. Not party lines.

And finally, I am a registered democrat....so don't try to lump me into the right wing or conservative party!

I hold Obama responsible for not creating jobs and turning the economy around fast enough. He did not create the recession and to pin it on him is absurd.

Spending is a problem in both parties.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html

[OU_Sooners75]

We held our President accountable by not electing McCain in 2008.

Obama spend spend spend is an insane stmt. He's ended a War that was costing us over a billion dollars a day. To think he can turn around the mess the Bush Administration caused in 3 years is insane. Even the Bush and McCain folks knew we would suffer from the events after 9-11 and the Wars. You elected Obama. You need to stick with your man. The Republican led Grover Norquist led House has everything to do with what's happening in the Democratic Senate. Congress is at odds with each other and the house is holding up the President. Don't be fooled into thinking that the GOP we see running for office on Super Tuesday has the answers. I think the guy you elected deserves 4 more years just based on how well he has stuck to his guns about ending the War and killing Bin Laden. It's something I think he should get credit for doing.

Didn't they say his purprosed budget was a record for any president?

If so, he sure saved some money by spending even more!

Stop the excuses and the bull****. The guy thinks he can bankrupt this country with a blank check!

I cannot fathom how any logical and reasonable person can even back the 3 years that Obama has had.

Hope and change. I bought into it...And he was correct....he built up hope, to only change the budget to record spending. To change how we do foreign affairs.

You say you held your president accountable for not putting McCain in office...good....not hold this one accountable but firing him!

[okie52]

Harold Hamm, OILMAN, nice unbiased opinion, no wonder Harry wants the pipeline so bad. Look at what happened the last time oilmen took over our energy policy, production DROPPED, now harry is trying to blame Obama and it's going up, way up.



ARALLEL UNIVERSE




Harold Hamm (born December 11, 1945 in Lexington, Oklahoma) is an American oilman who was ranked in the March 2011 issue of Forbes as the 33rd richest person in America, with a net worth of $8.6 billion.[1] In 2012, presidental candidate Mitt Romney named Hamm as his energy advisor.[2] Hamm is a key player in Hiland Partners and Hiland Holdings[3] as well as the oil-exploration company Continental Resources, Oklahoma's fourth largest public company.[4][5][6] Continental Resources, which is currently operating out of the Continental Towers in Enid, Oklahoma will move to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 2012.[4] Hamm was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame in 2011.[7]

He worked his way up from pumping gas and car repair at Potter’s Corner in Enid[8] to becoming CEO of his own billion-dollar company. Harold Hamm has been the CEO of Continental Resources since 1967,[9] when the company was called Shelly Dean Oil Company.[10] Mr. Hamm and Continental Resources have been instrumental in developing the gigantic Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota.[11] He has five children and lives in Enid, Oklahoma.[12] Hamm holds honorary degrees from Northwestern Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma.[13] He is a graduate of Enid High School.[8] The Harold Hamm Diabetes Center at the University of Oklahoma was named after Hamm, who has battled diabetes.[13] Hamm's foundation, the Harold and Sue Ann Hamm Foundation donated 10 million dollars to create the center.[10]

Once again the point flew right over your head...like they almost always do. The guy that discovered and developed the Bakken field in 2005 (notice that is way before obama was in office)and is a big reason for oil production increasing finds Obama's energy policies to be bankrupt.

Still waiting for your spin on how closing both coasts is good for energy independence...surely you've found a good reason by now.

[OU_Sooners75]

I hold Obama responsible for not creating jobs and turning the economy around fast enough. He did not create the recession and to pin it on him is absurd.

Spending is a problem in both parties.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html

Who has pinned the recession on Obama? I would hope any logical person could see that the recession started under Bush.

Exactly...the spending is the problem of both parties....and we the American people need to put a stop to it and demand a balanced budget amendment. We also need to demand a smaller government.

Yes, I am a democrat only by registration...but we need to take this country back....and None of the republicans or Obama are going to do it.

If I could have voted today, I would have voted for Paul!

[OU_Sooners75]

Once again the point flew right over your head...like they almost always do. The guy that discovered and developed the Bakken field in 2005 (notice that is way before obama was in office)and is a big reason for oil production increasing finds Obama's energy policies to be bankrupt.

Still waiting for your spin on how closing both coasts is good for energy independence...surely you've found a good reason by now.

Are you surprised?

[okie52]

I know rich folks would love to always buy low and sell high. Where did you dig that article up? The Oil n Gas Journal?

Did anyone ask the Obama Administration to respond to that? I just have a hard time digging deep into my soul to garner sympathy for something like that. The Oil n Gas is gonna be there forever if we find another source. If we can't find another source then we are going to have to use it. I just don't understand why Oil n Gas folks are wetting their pants. Are they going broke? Do they need the money to by more oil rich land?

Try the wall street journal...if that would make any difference to you.

Try looking into your mind and understanding energy independence and that our president has denied access to developing our vast reserves off of our Atlantic and pacific coasts...that isn't really hurting oil companies near as much as it is hurting this country and it's citizens.

[okie52]

Are you surprised?

Every now and then I hope that party dogma regurgitators will actually think about an issue objectively rather than just spew some nonsensical tripe to fit their party interests.
Usually a futile attempt on my part.

[diverdog]

Maybe if you would stop obsessing over just my posts and read, then maybe, just maybe, you would get an idea.

That is all I am giving you.

We targeted and killed one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing in a drone attack. The others were arrested and one of the operational planners escaped in 2006. So no I do not know who you are talking about.

[diverdog]

Who has pinned the recession on Obama? I would hope any logical person could see that the recession started under Bush.

Exactly...the spending is the problem of both parties....and we the American people need to put a stop to it and demand a balanced budget amendment. We also need to demand a smaller government.

Yes, I am a democrat only by registration...but we need to take this country back....and None of the republicans or Obama are going to do it.

If I could have voted today, I would have voted for Paul!

Fair enough.

[diverdog]

Okie:

Did you see this:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-03-06/keystone-oil-pipeline-route-revised/53384882/1?loc=interstitialskip

[okie52]

Okie:

Did you see this:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-03-06/keystone-oil-pipeline-route-revised/53384882/1?loc=interstitialskip

A little bit diver. Surprisingly I haven't been following it all that closely other than I knew the Cushing south part of the pipeline was looking good.

[soonercruiser]

Diverdog...

A better question:

When are you Obama sympathizers going to hold him to the same standards (or criticize him) as you all have Bush?

Answer for Diver....NEVER!

[OU_Sooners75]

We targeted and killed one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing in a drone attack. The others were arrested and one of the operational planners escaped in 2006. So no I do not know who you are talking about.

Bin Laden....you know, the leader of the group that took credit for the attack?

[OU_Sooners75]

Diverdog....

Can you answer me this one question?

When are you going to a hold the democrats of the US government to the same standards and criticism that which you hold the republicans?



I think we all can agree, that politics is hurting this country more than anything right now. And in order to get our government under control, we need the American people to stop playing politics and partisanship. We need everyone to look at core values we need for this country and reevaluate what is important and what is not.

Then after we got those set then let the left and right go at it.

It isn't fair to my children or their children to have to pay for the sins of the leaders of today. We need to look toward the future and stop looking at the now!

[StoopTroup]

It isn't fair to my children or their children to have to pay for the sins of the leaders of today. We need to look toward the future and stop looking at the now!

What unbelievable is that you think your children will be stuck with the bill. It is possible that China might never be able to recover any of the money we owe them and that they might be taken over by the 1.3 billion starving people over there that get tired of the current power structure running Communist China. They may just turn to us to supply them with the Weapons they need to take their Country back and our Children might very easily wipe the debt that many scared and afraid Americans are buying might happen if we ever allow another Democrat into office.

America still comes up with more good ideas than any Country in the World. We will always be able to pay our debts unless we continue to put Republican's that love War more than Sanctions and negotiating. Look what Cuba has allowed Castro to do to their Country over the last 50 years. Cuba is a backwards Country that people can't leave fast enough. China will tire of living in squalor while watching many others live rich. It won't be long before the people there get fed up with it all. China will one day hit a wall and the people there will want change. The Chinese Americans I know here love the way we run our Country. They will one day want to change things there.

[ictsooner7]

Diverdog...

A better question:

When are you Obama sympathizers going to hold him to the same standards (or criticize him) as you all have Bush?

You all seem to want your cake and to eat it too.

I could care less if Obama was a republican, independent, or democrat. My problem with him is that he talks a good game. He talks about how the government needs to slim down and cut spending...yet all he does is spend, spend, spend.

This isnt a repub vs dem, or right vs left issues on my part...this is the future of America issue on my part.

I voted for Obama. I voted for Bush once (Gore the first time). I voted for Clinton (both times).

I have a track record of voting for a democrat, but better than that, I vote for who I think (or thought at the time) would be better for America and me. Not party lines.

And finally, I am a registered democrat....so don't try to lump me into the right wing or conservative party!

He is spending more but our economy is still fighting to grow and as Mitt said - cutting spending now will hurt the ecoomy.

[diverdog]

Diverdog....

Can you answer me this one question?

When are you going to a hold the democrats of the US government to the same standards and criticism that which you hold the republicans?



I think we all can agree, that politics is hurting this country more than anything right now. And in order to get our government under control, we need the American people to stop playing politics and partisanship. We need everyone to look at core values we need for this country and reevaluate what is important and what is not.

Then after we got those set then let the left and right go at it.

It isn't fair to my children or their children to have to pay for the sins of the leaders of today. We need to look toward the future and stop looking at the now!

You haven't been reading enough of my post or you would know that I think it is morally reprehensible that we are passing this debt along to our children. I think we need to withdraw from both wars, cut the defense budget by $350 billion dollars, raise another $400 billion in taxes and grow the economy by getting manufacturing and energy exploration back on track in this country. The cuts to the military would be over 10 years.

The Democrats have never met an entitlement they didn't like and the Republicans have never seen a tax they do not want to cut. Neither believes in shared sacrifice. You would not want me to be a dictator for a year because I would bring the pain. As you saw in my other post I would go after sacred cows like military and federal retirement and benefits. I would also boot every abled bodied person who could work off welfare and I would get rid of most of the earned income tax credit by means testing it. SS and medicare ages would go to 72. I am an everything is on the table kind of guy.

Oh and my plan B. Hold spending at its current levels and let inflation do the work.

[diverdog]

Bin Laden....you know, the leader of the group that took credit for the attack?

Thanks.

There was a little of disagreement in both the Clinton White House and Bush White House on whether OBL was involved in the operational planning of the Cole attack. He took credit for it but he took credit for a lot of things he did not do.

I am not sure we could have gotten him with airstrikes.

[rock on sooner]

Diverdog....

Can you answer me this one question?

When are you going to a hold the democrats of the US government to the same standards and criticism that which you hold the republicans?



I think we all can agree, that politics is hurting this country more than anything right now. And in order to get our government under control, we need the American people to stop playing politics and partisanship. We need everyone to look at core values we need for this country and reevaluate what is important and what is not.

Then after we got those set then let the left and right go at it.

It isn't fair to my children or their children to have to pay for the sins of the leaders of today. We need to look toward the future and stop looking at the now!

75, do you really think it is the American people or is it the people's representatives that are playing
the politics and partisanship under the guise that the people want this? Every sampling that I have
seen indicates the people are fed up, or getting that way quickly (88% congressional disapproval).
I think this election cycle will bring a sea change...a bunch of freshmen are gonna get tossed and
a bunch of long timers will, too. Can't happen soon enough!

[sappstuf]

I hold Obama responsible for not creating jobs and turning the economy around fast enough. He did not create the recession and to pin it on him is absurd.

Spending is a problem in both parties.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html

No he didn't create recession... Hell, it was over just a couple of months into his presidency before he could even do anything. It has been the Obama recovery from the recession that has been a disaster..

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.. He didn't just say that as a candidate, he said it after he took office.

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/obama-bidens-remarks-opening-fiscal-responsibility-summit/p18601

My only question is, do you think Obama is a liar or just incompetent?

[ictsooner7]

No he didn't create recession... Hell, it was over just a couple of months into his presidency before he could even do anything. It has been the Obama recovery from the recession that has been a disaster..

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.. He didn't just say that as a candidate, he said it after he took office.

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/obama-bidens-remarks-opening-fiscal-responsibility-summit/p18601

My only question is, do you think Obama is a liar or just incompetent?

Like I have posted before the gdp growth from 3.59% in 2004, bush high, to -0.02 in 2007 to -3.5 in 2009 up to 3% in 2010 and 2011. 6.59% change in one year. Unemployemnt down from 4.4% May 2007 to 7.8% jan 2009 to 10% oct 2009 back down to 8.3% jan 2012. 603,000 government jobs lost since jan 2009. 549,000 private sector jobs lost since jan 2009. We have experienced 23 months of positive private-sector job GROWTH from February 2010 until January 2012. We have added 3,663,000 private-sector jobs during those 23 months.

The job losses and gdp decreasing since 2007 caused by bush and the republicans, we almost had a depression and you're complaining about how fast he is getting us out of it? Why doesn't the republicans help instead of trying everything they can to stop the growth in the economy to impove their chances of winning the white house. The debt limit increase fight is an perfect example.

[diverdog]

No he didn't create recession... Hell, it was over just a couple of months into his presidency before he could even do anything. It has been the Obama recovery from the recession that has been a disaster..

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.. He didn't just say that as a candidate, he said it after he took office.

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/obama-bidens-remarks-opening-fiscal-responsibility-summit/p18601

My only question is, do you think Obama is a liar or just incompetent?

Neither. There were a lot of things happening globally that played into the mix. I think he also underestimated how bad the construction industry had been shattered.

[sappstuf]

Like I have posted before the gdp growth from 3.59% in 2004, bush high, to -0.02 in 2007 to -3.5 in 2009 up to 3% in 2010 and 2011. 6.59% change in one year. Unemployemnt down from 4.4% May 2007 to 7.8% jan 2009 to 10% oct 2009 back down to 8.3% jan 2012. 603,000 government jobs lost since jan 2009. 549,000 private sector jobs lost since jan 2009. We have experienced 23 months of positive private-sector job GROWTH from February 2010 until January 2012. We have added 3,663,000 private-sector jobs during those 23 months.

The job losses and gdp decreasing since 2007 caused by bush and the republicans, we almost had a depression and you're complaining about how fast he is getting us out of it? Why doesn't the republicans help instead of trying everything they can to stop the growth in the economy to impove their chances of winning the white house. The debt limit increase fight is an perfect example.

You are not DD, but you still didn't answer the question. Additionally, on January 4 of 2007 the Dems took control of the House and Senate. So when you say things like "job losses and gdp decreasing since 2007", make sure you give Dems the credit they deserve during that time. It wasn't Bush and the Repubs, it was Bush and the Dems.

Obama made a specific promise. He made it after taking office. He vowed to cut the deficit in half. He has completely failed to do so which his own budget proposal has shown. You respond with stuff that barely has anything to do with the topic instead of answering the direct question. You get off topic so easily that...

Squirrel!!

http://betweenthestacks.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/squirrel.jpg

[diverdog]

This needs to be changed and changed quickly:


The recent rise in gasoline prices has prompted Congressional hearings and a call to federal regulators to curb what many see as the cause for the spike: oil speculators.A House subcommittee held a hearing on "The American Energy Initiative" Wednesday morning that focused solely on rising pump prices. Seventy members of Congress signed a letter this week to regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), urging immediate action on oil speculation by enacting "strong position limits" and to "utilize all authorities available to…make sure that the price of oil and gasoline reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand."
The CFTC was given authority in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to impose position caps on oil traders beginning in January 2011. These limits have not yet been implemented by the CFTC. In an interview Wednesday with The Daily Ticker, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says the CFTC doesn't "have the will" to enact these limits and "needs to obey the law."
"What we need to do is…limit the amount of oil any one company can control on the oil futures market," says Sanders, who has long advocated limits (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/gas-prices-outrageously-high-sen-bernie-sanders-demands-183803867.html) on speculation. "The function of these speculators is not to use oil but to make profits from speculation, drive prices up and sell."
The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. has increased nearly 30 cents in one month according to the AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report. U.S. oil prices have jumped more than six percent since Feb. 1 even though oil demand in the U.S. is at its lowest level since April 2007. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that the world's oil supply rose by 1.3 million barrels a day in the last three months of 2011 while world demand increased just 0.7 million barrels per day during that same time period.
This is not the first time oil speculators have been blamed for higher energy prices. In 2008 U.S. oil prices skyrocketed to $145 per barrel and gasoline prices averaged well above $4 per gallon. There were calls to increase domestic offshore drilling and legislation was proposed that would have required buyers of oil to physically own and store the oil barrels. Then the 2008 financial crisis hit causing oil and gasoline prices to plummet.
Blaming the speculators may seem like scapegoating to some (namely, oil traders) but speculators control more than 80 percent of the energy futures market, up from 30 percent a decade ago, and there is mounting evidence that speculation contributes to higher prices:

At a Senate hearing last June, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, said speculation was driving up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as 40 percent.
A study conducted by the nonpartisan consumer advocacy group Consumer Federation of America found that speculation caused the average American household to spend an additional $600 on gasoline expenditures in 2011. Moreover, the report concluded that excessive speculation (which the organization estimated added about $30 per barrel to the cost of oil in 2011) drained the U.S. economy of more than $200 billion in consumer spending in 2011.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve has also recommended that the CFTC do more to prevent oil speculators from driving up the price of oil. Fed officials studied the effect of oil traders on the price oil over five years and determined that "speculation contributed to around 15 percent to oil prices increases."
CFTC Chair Gary Gensler declared last year that "huge inflows of speculative money create a self-fulfilling prophecy that drives up commodity prices."
There are many components reflected in the current price of oil, including old-fashioned supply and demand and geopolitical factors (such as a possible attack on Iran). Rising gasoline prices are a huge pocketbook issue for many Americans, a reason alone for politicians to focus on the role of the speculators.


Related Quotes:

^OIX (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^oix) 822.50 +4.67 +0.57%XOM (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=xom) 85.83 -0.03 -0.03%CVX (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cvx) 109.46 +0.61 +0.56%GS (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gs) 116.40 +2.73 +2.40%CLJ12.NYM (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=clj12.nym) 106.339996 +0.18 (+0.17%)SLB (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=slb) 74.70 +0.91 +1.23%COP (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cop) 77.02 +0.57 +0.75%BP (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=bp) 46.54 +0.31 +0.67%USO (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=uso) 40.61 +0.48 +1.20%OIL (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=oil) 26.94 +0.37 +1.39%

[sappstuf]

Neither. There were a lot of things happening globally that played into the mix.

Obama had already repeatedly labelled it as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, that was global wasn't it? So he at least pretended to know how bad it was before assuming office.

I think your answer leans much closer to incompetence.. That is a valid choice.

[ictsooner7]

This needs to be changed and changed quickly:

Finally something we agree on.

[ictsooner7]

You are not DD, but you still didn't answer the question. Additionally, on January 4 of 2007 the Dems took control of the House and Senate. So when you say things like "job losses and gdp decreasing since 2007", make sure you give Dems the credit they deserve during that time. It wasn't Bush and the Repubs, it was Bush and the Dems.

Obama made a specific promise. He made it after taking office. He vowed to cut the deficit in half. He has completely failed to do so which his own budget proposal has shown. You respond with stuff that barely has anything to do with the topic instead of answering the direct question. You get off topic so easily that...

Squirrel!!

http://betweenthestacks.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/squirrel.jpg

Tell me EXACTLY what laws were passed that BUSH signed that caused the meltdown?

In 2000 bush promised economic growth with tax cuts to the rich, how did that work?

Here are the individual performances of each president since 1948:

1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), 2009 -3.59%, 2010 +3%, 2012 +3%

The worst quarter was 4th 2008, it started improving in the 1st quarter 2009. Job report this month 200k+ jobs in Feb, two more months and all the private sector jobs lost since 2009 will be replaced.

I answer with facts and data you just repeat rightwing talking points. Supply side politics caused the meltdown, tell me after LOSING 2 million jobs in eight years, how do you think supply side politics works?

[sappstuf]

Tell me EXACTLY what laws were passed that BUSH signed that caused the meltdown?

I answer with facts and data you just repeat rightwing talking points. Supply side politics caused the meltdown, tell me after LOSING 2 million jobs in eight years, how do you think supply side politics works?

So now you are saying that Bush didn't cause the meltdown? I thought you believed that Bush caused the meltdown, so you should know all the laws that he passed to cause it....

I had no idea that the Dems taking control of the House and Senate on January 4 of 2007 was a talking point... I thought it was a fact.

[ictsooner7]

So now you are saying that Bush didn't cause the meltdown? I thought you believed that Bush caused the meltdown, so you should know all the laws that he passed to cause it....

I had no idea that the Dems taking control of the House and Senate on January 4 of 2007 was a talking point... I thought it was a fact.


Bush = supply side politics.

Are you really that slow?

AGAIN answer the question, what did bush sign that the democrats passed that caused the meltdown?

[dwarthog]

So Bush's tax cuts being a cornerstone of his supply side economics and the main argument from progressives as to why supply side is a failure, perhaps someone could explain why Obama is still demanding extensions to Bush's tax cuts, signing into law such feckless policy?

[sappstuf]

nm

[C&CDean]

Let's see, I only gave this ick schmo a short vacation - and I honestly thought I'd perm-banned it.

Then, it has the audacity to report posts and whine about personal attacks. How rich.

Ick, give me one solid reason why I shouldn't perma you right now. I'll take it off the air...

[ictsooner7]

So Bush's tax cuts being a cornerstone of his supply side economics and the main argument from progressives as to why supply side is a failure, perhaps someone could explain why Obama is still demanding extensions to Bush's tax cuts, signing into law such feckless policy?

Obama is fighting to keep the tax cuts for households under $250K, republicans are fighting to keep tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. He stupidly and cowardly gave into the right after the last election and signed them all in since the republicans were going to raise taxes on EVERYBODY if the millionaire and billionaire “job creators” didn’t get to keep their tax cuts.

[ictsooner7]

Let's see, I only gave this ick schmo a short vacation - and I honestly thought I'd perm-banned it.

Then, it has the audacity to report posts and whine about personal attacks. How rich.

Ick, give me one solid reason why I shouldn't perma you right now. I'll take it off the air...

Go ahead ban me. Double standard you operate under.

I got an infraction for this

First off you dumb@ss, this is directed at you, i was coping YOU, try to keep up. Second, I have NEVER pumped articles written by Trig Palin birthers, you are lying. PROVE I DID. I have never believed that crap.


BUT, when I was called a dumbass, this is the response.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Go ahead ban me. I have my other troll account to post under.True.

[ictsooner7]

True.

Haven't thought about that, but I could do that all day long.........................

[C&CDean]

No, you really couldn't. And for the record, it's not about "fair and balanced." It's about being a loudmouth dickface. Other loudmouth dickfaces get bannings all the time. Quit whining.

[ictsooner7]

No, you really couldn't. And for the record, it's not about "fair and balanced." It's about being a loudmouth dickface. Other loudmouth dickfaces get bannings all the time. Quit whining.

Ban yourself.

[sappstuf]

Ban yourself.

Sometimes that key is so easy to hit...

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs29/f/2008/059/c/d/Self_Destruct_Key_by_TheCheesy4.jpg

[olevetonahill]

Let's see, I only gave this ick schmo a short vacation - and I honestly thought I'd perm-banned it.

Then, it has the audacity to report posts and whine about personal attacks. How rich.

Ick, give me one solid reason why I shouldn't perma you right now. I'll take it off the air...

But Dean he has all these Nifty Charts and Graphs and ****, Course ya cant tell where they came from or what year they be from , But Hell he has an Impressive array of em .

[olevetonahill]

No, you really couldn't. And for the record, it's not about "fair and balanced." It's about being a loudmouth dickface. Other loudmouth dickfaces get bannings all the time. Quit whining.


Im Bending over and Ready for you, Big Boy .

Shockin

[ictsooner7]

But Dean he has all these Nifty Charts and Graphs and ****, Course ya cant tell where they came from or what year they be from , But Hell he has an Impressive array of em .

I have a finance background, I LOVE charts, they tell the story and most come from government data. I do my best to double check them for accuracy. Hate having a chart that is wrong.

[olevetonahill]

I have a finance background, I LOVE charts, they tell the story and most come from government data. I do my best to double check them for accuracy. Hate having a chart that is wrong.

Like that One showin Oil is only 85 bucks a Barrel ?

[okie52]

Obama is fighting to keep the tax cuts for households under $250K, republicans are fighting to keep tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. He stupidly and cowardly gave into the right after the last election and signed them all in since the republicans were going to raise taxes on EVERYBODY if the millionaire and billionaire “job creators” didn’t get to keep their tax cuts.

What, no shared sacrifice? Those tax rates for everyone were the Clinton tax rates...you know, nirvana, the days of wine and honey, balanced budgets, thriving economy. And those tax breaks for "everyone else" are projected to create 4 times the debt that the tax breaks for the "rich" would create.

[okie52]

Sometimes that key is so easy to hit...

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs29/f/2008/059/c/d/Self_Destruct_Key_by_TheCheesy4.jpg

LOL

[ictsooner7]

What, no shared sacrifice? Those tax rates for everyone were the Clinton tax rates...you know, nirvana, the days of wine and honey, balanced budgets, thriving economy. And those tax breaks for "everyone else" are projected to create 4 times the debt that the tax breaks for the "rich" would create.

So your in with raise taxes on everyone if the wealth don't get a tax cut?

and YES, cut taxes to the poeple who spend the money, that is the fatal flaw of supply side politics. Here is a lil info on the guy who came up with supply side "economics".

This weekend, House Republican leader John Boehner played out the role of Jude Wanniski on NBC's "Meet The Press."
Odds are you've never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a "successful" president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and neither George Bush would have been president.
When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people's bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover's economic worldview.
In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.
Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."
Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."
The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making richer the very richest. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.
Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on millionaires of 91 percent. As he wrote to his brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:
"[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [you possibly know his background], a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Goldwater, however, rejected the "liberalism" of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and other "moderates" within his own party. Extremism in defense of liberty was no vice, he famously told the 1964 nominating convention, and moderation was no virtue. And it doomed him and his party.
And so after Goldwater's defeat, the Republicans were again lost in the wilderness just as after Hoover's disastrous presidency. Even four years later when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Nixon wasn't willing to embrace the economic conservatism of Goldwater and the economic true believers in the Republican Party. And Jerry Ford wasn't, in their opinions, much better. If Nixon and Ford believed in economic conservatism, they were afraid to practice it for fear of dooming their party to another forty years in the electoral wilderness.
By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.
Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.
Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.
At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!
Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.
Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.
There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.
When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security – and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.
Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.
And that's just how it turned out. Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a "new covenant" with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box. A few weeks before his inauguration, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an "end to welfare as we know it" and, in his second inaugural address, an "end to the era of big government." He was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.
Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton by 1999, Winniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part: "We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve... But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the 'Two Santa Claus Theory' in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts..."
Ed Crane, president of the Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year: "When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they'd died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you don't cut spending. That's why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments."
George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.
And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
"...Jude's charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. ... [T]he capital-gains tax has come erratically but inexorably down -- while the market capitalization of U.S. equities has risen from roughly a third of global market cap to close to half. These many trillions in new entrepreneurial wealth are a true warrant of the worth of his impact. Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize."
In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years – they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.
The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski's work. They held power for thirty years, made themselves trillions of dollars, cut organized labor's representation in the workplace from around 25 percent when Reagan came into office to around 8 of the non-governmental workforce today, and left such a massive deficit that some misguided "conservative" Democrats are again clamoring to shoot Santa with working-class tax hikes and entitlement program cuts.
And now Boehner, McCain, Brooks, and the whole crowd are again clamoring to be recognized as the ones who will out-Santa Claus the Democrats. You'd think after all the damage they've done that David Gregory would have simply laughed Boehner off the program – much as the American people did to the Republicans in the last election – although Gregory is far too much a gentleman for that. Instead, he merely looked incredulous; it was enough.
The Two Santa Claus theory isn't dead, as we can see from today's Republican rhetoric. Hopefully, though, reality will continue to sink in with the American people and the massive fraud perpetrated by Wanniski, Reagan, Laffer, Graham, Bush(s), and all their "conservative" enablers will be seen for what it was and is. And the Obama administration can get about the business of repairing the damage and recovering the stolen assets of these cheap hustlers.

[okie52]

Shockin

:congratulatory:

[ictsooner7]

Like that One showin Oil is only 85 bucks a Barrel ?

Show me which one that is. If I did, then my mistake.

[ictsooner7]

What, no shared sacrifice? Those tax rates for everyone were the Clinton tax rates...you know, nirvana, the days of wine and honey, balanced budgets, thriving economy. And those tax breaks for "everyone else" are projected to create 4 times the debt that the tax breaks for the "rich" would create.

Hell of a lot better than what bush brought on. Glad we finally agree on something.

[olevetonahill]

Show me which one that is. If I did, then my mistake.

Dude I called yer *** on it 3 times at least. You chose to ignore it
**** off dip **** .

[okie52]

So your in with raise taxes on everyone if the wealth don't get a tax cut?

and YES, cut taxes to the poeple who spend the money, that is the fatal flaw of supply side politics. Here is a lil info on the guy who came up with supply side "economics".




Sure, Clinton tax rates were golden. Don't you agree? So far Obama has been a huge supply sider.

[ictsooner7]

Dude I called yer *** on it 3 times at least. You chose to ignore it
**** off dip **** .

Nice..................like I said show me, I missed it.

[okie52]

Hell of a lot better than what bush brought on. Glad we finally agree on something.

If so, why don't you want to go back to the Clinton rates?

[olevetonahill]

Nice..................like I said show me, I missed it.

Please,

[ictsooner7]

Sure, Clinton tax rates were golden. Don't you agree? So far Obama has been a huge supply sider.

Just look at the bottom line............GDP clinton kicked both bush's and reagan ***, look at jobs clinton kicked both bush's and reagan *** look at carters! More jobs per year than reagan, didn't triple the debt and deficit and has just a couple of tenths of percentage points GDP growth lower than reagans. Look at the data.

[okie52]

Just look at the bottom line............GDP clinton kicked both bush's and reagan ***, look at jobs clinton kicked both bush's and reagan *** look at carters! More jobs per year than reagan, didn't triple the debt and deficit and has just a couple of tenths of percentage points GDP growth lower than reagans. Look at the data.

Great, so why not go back to the "shared sacrifice" of the Clinton tax rates?

[ictsooner7]

Great, so why not go back to the "shared sacrifice" of the Clinton tax rates?

fine by me..............then let us hear you scream how the democrats raised taxes on everyone. We know how this game is played. The thing is trickle down economics simply is a failure, the numbers don't add up. People spending money is what drive the economy. PERIOD, supply side "economics" says if you put more capital into the system then buisinesses will be built because captial is cheaper. The very first thing ANY business looks at in expanding or starting up is DEMAND.

[ictsooner7]

Please,

Like I said..................dude...............show me the chart, I don't know where I posted it. I can always post another updated one. It's super easy............GOOGLE.

[olevetonahill]

Like I said..................dude...............show me the chart, I don't know where I posted it. I can always post another updated one. It's super easy............GOOGLE.

Thats what Im skeered of. YOU postin More charts and Graphs and **** .

[okie52]

fine by me..............then let us hear you scream how the democrats raised taxes on everyone. We know how this game is played. The thing is trickle down economics simply is a failure, the numbers don't add up. People spending money is what drive the economy. PERIOD, supply side "economics" says if you put more capital into the system then buisinesses will be built because captial is cheaper. The very first thing ANY business looks at in expanding or starting up is DEMAND.

Well I guess Obama has bought into supply side economics. And the areas that have huge demand he has ignored or punished.

People screamed when Clinton raised taxes and he still won. Obama is too big a coward?

[ictsooner7]

Thats what Im skeered of. YOU postin More charts and Graphs and **** .

Do you bother looking at the date line on the bottom of the chart? Oil was $85 a barrel in oct 2011.

[ictsooner7]

Well I guess Obama has bought into supply side economics. And the areas that have huge demand he has ignored or punished.

People screamed when Clinton raised taxes and he still won. Obama is too big a coward?

Sadly yes he is. We finally agree on something.

[olevetonahill]

Do you bother looking at the date line on the bottom of the chart? Oil was $85 a barrel in oct 2011.

Actually as a matter of fact I dont read much of what you post cause its mostly Charts an Graphs and all manner of Bull****

[ictsooner7]

Actually as a matter of fact I dont read much of what you post cause its mostly Charts an Graphs and all manner of Bull****

Just as I thought, I've been around long enough to know when you don't can't argue fact, attack the chart. Now you said I posted a chart showing oil at $85 a barrel, and it was in Oct 2011. I know that charts and graphs that do not back you and the rightwing talking points are all manner of Bull****, to you and yours. This is why we cannot have a conversation that is reasonable. Show me the proof of your positions and I will look at it. Until then, unless you read the charts and graphs I put up, don't attack them unless you can prove they are wrong.

[olevetonahill]

Just as I thought, I've been around long enough to know when you don't can't argue fact, attack the chart. Now you said I posted a chart showing oil at $85 a barrel, and it was in Oct 2011. I know that charts and graphs that do not back you and the rightwing talking points are all manner of Bull****, to you and yours. This is why we cannot have a conversation that is reasonable. Show me the proof of your positions and I will look at it. Until then, unless you read the charts and graphs I put up, don't attack them unless you can prove they are wrong.

You sir are a Prime example of.

If ya cant Dazzle em with Brillance
Baffle em with Bull****
I

[ictsooner7]

You sir are a Prime example of.

If ya cant Dazzle em with Brillance
Baffle em with Bull****
I

You're the one making the accusation, prove it. OR


If ya cant Dazzle em with Brillance
Baffle em with Bull**** .

PROVE IT

[olevetonahill]

You're the one making the accusation, prove it. OR


If ya cant Dazzle em with Brillance
Baffle em with Bull**** .

PROVE IT

Prove what? That yer a ****in Idiot?
Hell YOU have done that .

[ictsooner7]

Prove what? That yer a ****in Idiot?
Hell YOU have done that .

Solid intellectual come back. Are going to use the I’m rubber your glue come back next? Are you in jr high? AGAIN, show me what your b!tching about $85 a barrel oil. PROVE I was wrong.

[OULenexaman]

your wrong.....I proved it.

[TUSooner]

I have a sneaky suspicion that "Obama is doing everything he can to strangle th'awl bidness" translates to "Obama is not doing everything the oil lobby wants him to do to." But that's just a thought. No reason to think oil companies would ever ask for special treatment from Uncle Sam or that they would ever whine about not getting what they want. Or that they would stoop to lobbying Congress or anything like that.

That said, I love that the oil business is booming and hiring and making money. But I mostly care about when is somebody going to drill on that land I own a teeny tiny part of in SW OK? I don't see any federal agents out there stopping them.

[Ton Loc]

That said, I love that the oil business is booming and hiring and making money. But I mostly care about when is somebody going to drill on that land I own a teeny tiny part of in SW OK? I don't see any federal agents out there stopping them.

I think all that marijauna you're growing is scaring the landmen off.

[okie52]

I have a sneaky suspicion that "Obama is doing everything he can to strangle th'awl bidness" translates to "Obama is not doing everything the oil lobby wants him to do to." But that's just a thought. No reason to think oil companies would ever ask for special treatment from Uncle Sam or that they would ever whine about not getting what they want. Or that they would stoop to lobbying Congress or anything like that.

That said, I love that the oil business is booming and hiring and making money. But I mostly care about when is somebody going to drill on that land I own a teeny tiny part of in SW OK? I don't see any federal agents out there stopping them.

Sure, believe the oil companies are no better than any other business....just seeking a profit (something that obviously can't be found in the green energy sector).

So shutting down both coasts and denying the country access to those vast reserves doesn't seem a tad illogical, a little bit harmful to this country?

[ictsooner7]

Again, your "facts" don't add up. From the government. Tell me again how Obama is killing the oil industry, Down when bush was president, up when Obama is president.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif"]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif

from the wall street jounal

Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?

The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.

The drilling boom is being driven by a variety of factors. New technologies have allowed companies to tap vast new oil reserves in places like North Dakota, Texas and, most recently, Ohio. High oil prices are making once-unprofitable fields more tempting. And low natural-gas prices are leading companies to shift their focus to finding oil. Natural-gas drilling, which generally uses the same rigs but in different places, is down 8% in the past year.

All that drilling is helping to boost U.S. oil production. The U.S. pumped 3.9 million barrels a day from onshore fields in March, up 5.9% from a year earlier and the most in nearly a decade.

Rising production—along with other factors such as increased use of alternative fuels and reduced consumption due to more fuel-efficient cars—is helping to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. U.S. crude oil imports last week were down 11% from a year ago; on a percentage basis, the U.S. imported less of its oil last year than any year since 2003.

The trend may not continue, however. Oil prices have fallen to about $85 a barrel in recent weeks, down sharply from their highs of well over $100 a barrel last spring. The drop won’t make companies stop drilling, but lower prices combined with higher costs could be enough to slow the rig count’s rapid rise.


Where in Holy Hell are you gettin that Price?
Oil is Over 106 per Barrel right now

The article was from August 2011. What was the price of oil in August of 2011? $85. I posted a link, if you can't follow it then don't blame me.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/27/number-of-the-week-how-many-rigs-are-drilling-for-oil/

there does that help?

[TUSooner]

Sure, believe the oil companies are no better than any other business....just seeking a profit (something that obviously can't be found in the green energy sector).

So shutting down both coasts and denying the country access to those vast reserves doesn't seem a tad illogical, a little bit harmful to this country?

Oil companies are behaving just like any other rational companies. And they are neither sacred nor evil, though they look better at some times than others. I don't expect you to be receptive to any views other than your own well-cemented ones, but if I can annoy you a bit, I'll take it! :)

[okie52]

I think all that marijauna you're growing is scaring the landmen off.

Not the landmen I know...his lease would be top priority.

[REDREX]

The price of crude at the Louisiana Refineries is over $126.00 per BBL----gee I wonder why gasoline price is up and people want to bring more crude to the Gulf Coast

[ictsooner7]

I have a sneaky suspicion that "Obama is doing everything he can to strangle th'awl bidness" translates to "Obama is not doing everything the oil lobby wants him to do to." But that's just a thought. No reason to think oil companies would ever ask for special treatment from Uncle Sam or that they would ever whine about not getting what they want. Or that they would stoop to lobbying Congress or anything like that.

That said, I love that the oil business is booming and hiring and making money. But I mostly care about when is somebody going to drill on that land I own a teeny tiny part of in SW OK? I don't see any federal agents out there stopping them.

You hit the nail on the head. I keep showing them how oil production is up since he took office, buy they keep yelling he's killing the oil industry. He sure does have a funny way of killing it.

[okie52]

Oil companies are behaving just like any other rational companies. And they are neither sacred nor evil, though they look better at some times than others. I don't expect you to be receptive to any views other than your own well-cemented ones, but if I can annoy you a bit, I'll take it! :)

I don't really mind contrary views and there are good reasons for many of them on many issues. I haven't found it on this one. Since you consider yourself to be open minded just provide me with your logic (or Obama's) for denying hundreds of billions in oil revenues and jobs to the country. The only annoyance is when you don't back up your "hunches".

[okie52]

You hit the nail on the head. I keep showing them how oil production is up since he took office, buy they keep yelling he's killing the oil industry. He sure does have a funny way of killing it.

How did Obama increase oil production?

And you never, ever, answered why Obama shutting down the coasts was good for the country or oil and gas production.

[REDREX]

You hit the nail on the head. I keep showing them how oil production is up since he took office, buy they keep yelling he's killing the oil industry. He sure does have a funny way of killing it.----The only reason that production is up is the price it can be sold for ---- What has Barack done to improve the amount of drilling or production?

[TUSooner]

I don't really mind contrary views and there are good reasons for many of them on many issues. I haven't found it on this one. Since you consider yourself to be open minded just provide me with your logic (or Obama's) for denying hundreds of billions in oil revenues and jobs to the country. The only annoyance is when you don't back up your "hunches".
You ask me to assume facts that are not in evidence.

[okie52]

----The only reason that production is up is the price it can be sold for ---- What has Barack done to improve the amount of drilling or production?

You'll never hear it from them. The Bakken field came on in 2005. They don't have a clue about the Bakken or its developer (other than what we provide them) but, like Obama, are willing to take credit for its success even though developer states Obama's energy policies are a failure and that he is hamstringing their exploration efforts.

[okie52]

You ask me to assume facts that are not in evidence.

You mean there is no oil and gas off of our coasts? Then oil and gas companies surely wouldn't be trying to drill them, would they? (particularly since they are out only for profits).

Really wouldn't even be a need for a ban.

Did you notice in previous articles that offshore leasing bonus money had dropped from 9.5 Billion in 2008 to 36 million. Do those facts mean anything to you?

[ictsooner7]

----The only reason that production is up is the price it can be sold for ---- What has Barack done to improve the amount of drilling or production?




Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted
2000 $27.39 $35.88
2001 $23.00 $29.33
2002 $22.81 $28.59
2003 $27.69 $33.98
2004 $37.66 $44.96
2005 $50.04 $57.77
2006 $58.30 $65.25
2007 $64.20 $69.75
2008 $91.48 $95.57
2009 $53.48 $56.15
2010 $71.21 $73.69
2011 $87.04 $87.33

From 2003 through 2008 oil went from $27.69 to $95.57 YET

year production change
2000 5,821.60 -1.02 %
2001 5,801.40 -0.35 %
2002 5,745.55 -0.96 %
2003 5,680.70 -1.13 %
2004 5,418.85 -4.61 %
2005 5,178.38 -4.44 %
2006 5,102.08 -1.47 %
2007 5,064.25 -0.74 %
2008 4,950.32 -2.25 %
2009 5,360.54 8.29 %
2010 5,511.93 2.82 %

Production DROPPED from 5,801 to 4,950 barrels per year. Republican in the white house and holding both chambers until 2007. 2009 oil went DOWN by almost half but production went up by 8.29%! Please explain.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

[REDREX]

Look at the price ----- Even you should be able to fiquire it out

[ictsooner7]

Look at the price ----- Even you should be able to fiquire it out

That the price rises and production goes down? 2003 to 2008 Read it again.

[REDREX]

That the price drops and production goes down? Read it again.--- What is your point ?----Drilling and production is based on price. With todays prices everyone will produce all they can.----Even you should be able understand that

[okie52]

Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted
2000 $27.39 $35.88
2001 $23.00 $29.33
2002 $22.81 $28.59
2003 $27.69 $33.98
2004 $37.66 $44.96
2005 $50.04 $57.77
2006 $58.30 $65.25
2007 $64.20 $69.75
2008 $91.48 $95.57
2009 $53.48 $56.15
2010 $71.21 $73.69
2011 $87.04 $87.33

From 2003 through 2008 oil went from $27.69 to $95.57 YET

year production change
2000 5,821.60 -1.02 %
2001 5,801.40 -0.35 %
2002 5,745.55 -0.96 %
2003 5,680.70 -1.13 %
2004 5,418.85 -4.61 %
2005 5,178.38 -4.44 %
2006 5,102.08 -1.47 %
2007 5,064.25 -0.74 %
2008 4,950.32 -2.25 %
2009 5,360.54 8.29 %
2010 5,511.93 2.82 %

Production DROPPED from 5,801 to 4,950 barrels per year. Republican in the white house and holding both chambers until 2007. 2009 oil went DOWN by almost half but production went up by 8.29%! Please explain.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

Icky, you have amazing tunnel vision:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/572px-US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.png


US oil production has been dropping since 1970. Oil wells decline and thats called a decline curve. That includes a lot of presidents and congresses including Clinton in the 90's.

Only because of new technology developed by US oil companies has production begun to turn around as evidenced by the Bakken field in 2005, the eagleford field shortly thereafter. Both of those fields were on line long before Obama ever sniffed the White House and the continued development of those fields are now providing dividends while using drilling techniques that Obama and his minions still don't understand.

[ictsooner7]

--- What is your point ?----Drilling and production is based on price. With todays prices everyone will produce all they can.----Even you should be able understand that

Seriously? You cannot catch onto instances of prices go up and production going down and prices go down and production going up?

Production DROPPED from 5,801 to 4,950 barrels per year. Republican in the white house and holding both chambers until 2007. 2009 oil went DOWN by almost half but production went up by 8.29%! Of course price plays a role, but the agruement for the only reason production has gone up is pricing doesn't hold water. I have now showed two examples of prices and production going in opposite directions.

[REDREX]

You are Cluless---- If you don't think price is the main driver of E&P you know nothing about the oil business

[ictsooner7]

Icky, you have amazing tunnel vision:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/572px-US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.png


US oil production has been dropping since 1970. Oil wells decline and thats called a decline curve. That includes a lot of presidents and congresses including Clinton in the 90's.

Only because of new technology developed by US oil companies has production begun to turn around as evidenced by the Bakken field in 2005, the eagleford field shortly thereafter. Both of those fields were on line long before Obama ever sniffed the White House and the continued development of those fields are now providing dividends while using drilling techniques that Obama and his minions still don't understand.

You keep saying Obama is killing oil production, when I show you that production is up you say its prices, when I show you prices when up during bush years and production went down then prices went down in 2009 and production went up you try to claim it was oil fields coming online. Pick an argement and stick with it. This is what I'm talking about. Obama killing oil production, but production is UP. It was down during bush, with prices RAISING! I did not hear anyone saying he was killing oil production.

[ictsooner7]

You are Cluless---- If you don't think price is the main driver of E&P you know nothing about the oil business

Prices up, production down for four years under bush. The claim was look at the price of oil TODAY and that is why production is up.

[olevetonahill]

The article was from August 2011. What was the price of oil in August of 2011? $85. I posted a link, if you can't follow it then don't blame me.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/27/number-of-the-week-how-many-rigs-are-drilling-for-oil/

there does that help?

Now see heres where we differ some . I dont study yer Posts for every nuance that I can find, .
You post so much bull**** only a ****in Tard would try to read it all.

Now NO WHERE in what you posted gave a time frame, If I think what you post is Bull**** why in holy hell would I click on more links to see more of the same

Nice try there Youngun .

[REDREX]

Prices up, production down for four years under bush. The claim was look at the price of oil TODAY and that is why production is up.---You are cluless ----Look at how low the price was under Bush---

[okie52]

Seriously? You cannot catch onto instances of prices go up and production going down and prices go down and production going up?

Production DROPPED from 5,801 to 4,950 barrels per year. Republican in the white house and holding both chambers until 2007. 2009 oil went DOWN by almost half but production went up by 8.29%! Of course price plays a role, but the agruement for the only reason production has gone up is pricing doesn't hold water. I have now showed two examples of prices and production going in opposite directions.

Good lord Icky, I know you don't know anything about oil and gas but take off the blinders.

Oil didn't begin to be viable in many exploration areas because extraction costs were $50 per barrel meaning that many offshore and onshore areas came into play. Look at your chart around 2005. Add to that the increased drilling and fracking technology and you saw the exploration take off in these areas.

You need look no further than our current US NG situation. We have a huge NG glut in the US now thanks to the success of new drilling and fracking techniques. The price has dropped from $10 an MCF to less than $2.50 an MCF. Oil companies know where they can drill right now to greatly increase those NG reserves but the price doesn't warrant it...so guess what, they aren't drilling for gas anymore until the price changes and/or the glut is reduced.

[ictsooner7]

Good lord Icky, I know you don't know anything about oil and gas but take off the blinders.

Oil didn't begin to be viable in many exploration areas because extraction costs were $50 per barrel meaning that many offshore and onshore areas came into play. Look at your chart around 2005. Add to that the increased drilling and fracking technology and you saw the exploration take off in these areas.

You need look no further than our current US NG situation. We have a huge NG glut in the US now thanks to the success of new drilling and fracking techniques. The price has dropped from $10 an MCF to less than $2.50 an MCF. Oil companies know where they can drill right now to greatly increase those NG reserves but the price doesn't warrant it...so guess what, they aren't drilling for gas anymore until the price changes and/or the glut is reduced.

Good lord okie, you changed your argement. You claim Obama is killing production, I showed you production is up. You said the only reason oil production in the US is up is because of prices. I showed that does not always hold true, prices up production down under bush. Prices went down in 2009 but production went up.

PLEASE pick an agruement and stick to it.

The bottom line is Obama is not trying to kill production, someone posted a story about in PA the EPA is testing ground water around the fracking sites. The reason they are is that people were getting waste water in their drinnking water. It wasn't some evil plot by Obama to kill oil production.

[olevetonahill]

Hey Icky
2601

[REDREX]

We now know the problem ----Obama and his merrymen have the same understanding of the oil business as Icky

[ictsooner7]

We now know the problem ----Obama and his merrymen have the same understanding of the oil business as Icky

YEP down when bushy was in office up when obama is................................no understanding.

[okie52]

You keep saying Obama is killing oil production, when I show you that production is up you say its prices, when I show you prices when up during bush years and production went down then prices went down in 2009 and production went up you try to claim it was oil fields coming online. Pick an argement and stick with it. This is what I'm talking about. Obama killing oil production, but production is UP. It was down during bush, with prices RAISING! I did not hear anyone saying he was killing oil production.

Real simple question Icky....what did Obama do to help oil and gas production in the US?

Do oil wells magically come on line overnight...like when Obama took office in 2009?

Oh, God...so you think the oil companies stopped production when the price went down? They were already committed to the fields and other than a short period in 2009 when prices went sub $40 a barrel they were still economic.

Do you totally ignore the technology that has led to the increase in production in the last 7 years as being the main factor along with price for the increase in production?

And, you still have never answered the question about Obama banning drilling off of our coasts being good for oil and gas production?

[REDREX]

YEP down when bushy was in office up when obama is................................no understanding.---You are correct you have no clue

[okie52]

Good lord okie, you changed your argement. You claim Obama is killing production, I showed you production is up. You said the only reason oil production in the US is up is because of prices. I showed that does not always hold true, prices up production down under bush. Prices went down in 2009 but production went up.

PLEASE pick an agruement and stick to it.

The bottom line is Obama is not trying to kill production, someone posted a story about in PA the EPA is testing ground water around the fracking sites. The reason they are is that people were getting waste water in their drinnking water. It wasn't some evil plot by Obama to kill oil production.

Obama is severely restricting production. The EPA found nothing related to subsurface fracking regarding the ground water. Their concern was waste water disposal.

Drilling off of our coasts not restricting oil and gas production? Still no answer? What other countries are doing that? Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, columbia, Mexico, ecuador, ....?

Just tell me another country that is adopting the "Obama" approach to restricting their resources?

[ictsooner7]

Real simple question Icky....what did Obama do to help oil and gas production in the US?

Do oil wells magically come on line overnight...like when Obama took office in 2009?

Oh, God...so you think the oil companies stopped production when the price went down? They were already committed to the fields and other than a short period in 2009 when prices went sub $40 a barrel they were still economic.

Do you totally ignore the technology that has led to the increase in production in the last 7 years as being the main factor along with price for the increase in production?

And, you still have never answered the question about Obama banning drilling off of our coasts being good for oil and gas production?

The price of oil cracked $50 in 2005. four years before Obama took office. I feel like Everett trying to teach Pete and Delmar.

My anwer is this PRODUCTION UP SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE. PERIOD!

[okie52]

Hey Icky
2601

;)

[okie52]

The price of oil cracked $50 in 2005. four years before Obama took office. I feel like Everett trying to teach Pete and Delmar.

My anwer is this PRODUCTION UP SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE. PERIOD!

Very good Icky. Just when do you think the Bakken field was started by Hamm???? Think about it a real long time now.....2005. See any correlation there???? And guess how many wells have been added since then...?????

Ned and the 1st reader but I'll keep trying to help you out.


Obama shutting down the coasts not restricting oil and gas development????Still waiting on that ever elusive answer.

[ictsooner7]

;)

Listen okie, I don't mind learning about something, but you just keep changing the arguement then when I call you on it you call me stupid. You bring up NG and oil fields and EPA in PA. All of your arguements and positions are talking points taken stright from Harold Hamm and rightwing websites. I am using facts and data to backup my arguements.

My family has two NG wells on our land outside of Butler, we have gone through the process and we have gotten a check in the mail monthly for going on thirty years now. To tell me I know nothing about gas and oil is talking out of your ***.

[ictsooner7]

Very good Icky. Just when do you think the Bakken field was started by Hamm???? Think about it a real long time now.....2005. See any correlation there???? And guess how many wells have been added since then...?????

Ned and the 1st reader but I'll keep trying to help you out.


Obama shutting down the coasts not restricting oil and gas development????Still waiting on that ever elusive answer.

Show me the data on the amount of oil pulled out of that field since 2005.

[okie52]

Show me the data on the amount of oil pulled out of that field since 2005.

You don't have that info and you have assumed that it was all due to Obama? Amazing.

[ictsooner7]

You don't have that info and you have assumed that it was all due to Obama? Amazing.

Who said it was Obama, I have just been showing your he is not killing oil production. This is so tiring. JJEEEZZZ give it up, I proved you wrong. If you want to argue

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States is undergoing an energy boom -- but the oil and gas industry says it could be much, much bigger.

How much so?

A study last year commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute said that if every piece of federal land -- excluding national parks -- was open for drilling, North America could produce an additional 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.


Fine, lets do that, BUT if you age going to just regurgitate harold hamm and rightwing talking points I"M OUT.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I know all they is to know about the shrimpin' business.

[olevetonahill]

Who said it was Obama, I have just been showing your he is not killing oil production. This is so tiring. JJEEEZZZ give it up, I proved you wrong. If you want to argue

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States is undergoing an energy boom -- but the oil and gas industry says it could be much, much bigger.

How much so?

A study last year commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute said that if every piece of federal land -- excluding national parks -- was open for drilling, North America could produce an additional 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.


Fine, lets do that, BUT if you age going to just regurgitate harold hamm and rightwing talking points I"M OUT.


You big tease.

[okie52]

Who said it was Obama, I have just been showing your he is not killing oil production. This is so tiring. JJEEEZZZ give it up, I proved you wrong. If you want to argue

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States is undergoing an energy boom -- but the oil and gas industry says it could be much, much bigger.

How much so?

A study last year commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute said that if every piece of federal land -- excluding national parks -- was open for drilling, North America could produce an additional 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.


Fine, lets do that, BUT if you age going to just regurgitate harold hamm and rightwing talking points I"M OUT.

You proved me wrong about what? I didn't say production didn't increase while Obama was in office. I said Obama is needlessly hamstringing production, jobs, tax revenues, royalties, energy independence, our trade deficit, ect... for no reason other than to satify his ideological fantasies.

I'll use Harold Hamm quotes when its regarding the bakken and/or how exploration in the US is being hampered by Obama...particularly when he denies access to our vast reserves.

You, on the other hand, can only say ...Duuuhhh, production went up under Obama so he must be good without the faintest idea of what Obama is doing. Talk about talking points.

You still can't bring yourself to say "OBAMA IS GREATLY RESTRICTING THE COUNTRY'S EXPLORATION OF OIL AND GAS BY SHUTTING DOWN OUR COASTS".

Come on say it Icky...the truth will set you free.

[OU_Sooners75]

You proved me wrong about what? I didn't say production didn't increase while Obama was in office. I said Obama is needlessly hamstringing production, jobs, tax revenues, royalties, energy independence, our trade deficit, ect... for no reason other than to satify his ideological fantasies.

I'll use Harold Hamm quotes when its regarding the bakken and/or how exploration in the US is being hampered by Obama...particularly when he denies access to our vast reserves.

You, on the other hand, can only say ...Duuuhhh, production went up under Obama so he must be good without the faintest idea of what Obama is doing. Talk about talking points.

You still can't bring yourself to say "OBAMA IS GREATLY RESTRICTING THE COUNTRY'S EXPLORATION OF OIL AND GAS BY SHUTTING DOWN OUR COASTS".

Come on say it Icky...the truth will set you free.

He can't say it because he has no clue.

One will not admit something when they do not know what they are admitting to.

[diverdog]

You proved me wrong about what? I didn't say production didn't increase while Obama was in office. I said Obama is needlessly hamstringing production, jobs, tax revenues, royalties, energy independence, our trade deficit, ect... for no reason other than to satify his ideological fantasies.

I'll use Harold Hamm quotes when its regarding the bakken and/or how exploration in the US is being hampered by Obama...particularly when he denies access to our vast reserves.

You, on the other hand, can only say ...Duuuhhh, production went up under Obama so he must be good without the faintest idea of what Obama is doing. Talk about talking points.

You still can't bring yourself to say "OBAMA IS GREATLY RESTRICTING THE COUNTRY'S EXPLORATION OF OIL AND GAS BY SHUTTING DOWN OUR COASTS".

Come on say it Icky...the truth will set you free.

Okie:

In all fairness the coast have been restricted to energy exploration for a very long time. I understand the ban is technically lifted but there is a ton of resistance to ocean oil exploration by the states who are affected. I am pretty sure all those rich ocean front property owners are stopping the drilling in coastal waters. If the bans were lifted lawsuits would be filed by the droves. I am not sure how you get around this situation.

[Turd_Ferguson]

My family has two NG wells on our land outside of Butler, we have gone through the process and we have gotten a check in the mail monthly for going on thirty years now. To tell me I know nothing about gas and oil is talking out of your ***.So now you're a Petroleum Engineer because you have a couple of well's on your land?

[ictsooner7]

You proved me wrong about what? I didn't say production didn't increase while Obama was in office. I said Obama is needlessly hamstringing production, jobs, tax revenues, royalties, energy independence, our trade deficit, ect... for no reason other than to satify his ideological fantasies.

I'll use Harold Hamm quotes when its regarding the bakken and/or how exploration in the US is being hampered by Obama...particularly when he denies access to our vast reserves.

You, on the other hand, can only say ...Duuuhhh, production went up under Obama so he must be good without the faintest idea of what Obama is doing. Talk about talking points.

You still can't bring yourself to say "OBAMA IS GREATLY RESTRICTING THE COUNTRY'S EXPLORATION OF OIL AND GAS BY SHUTTING DOWN OUR COASTS".

Come on say it Icky...the truth will set you free.

It is not what you said......................Oil and Gas Boom that Obama can't kill is the title of the thread. I never ever claim production was up because of Obama, I just said they are up while he has been in office, YOU on the other hand claim he is trying to "Oil and Gas Boom that Obama can't kill". Kill means shut down, kill means dead, zero, nothing. Rightwing, oil exec talking point.

As for the coasts driverdog is right, been shut down for YEARS, till bush opened them up in 07 or 08. Do you really think Obama woke up one morning and said, hey I think I'll shut down drilling on the coasts for ****s and giggles? You really don't think the states don't want them either? SC has complianed but I cannot find anyother state that has, if you have a link to prove me wrong, I am willing to learn.

[ictsooner7]

So now you're a Petroleum Engineer because you have a couple of well's on your land?

Who said i was? Just making **** up.

[olevetonahill]

Who said i was? Just making **** up.

Well ya finally admitting it , Good Jorb.

[okie52]

Okie:

In all fairness the coast have been restricted to energy exploration for a very long time. I understand the ban is technically lifted but there is a ton of resistance to ocean oil exploration by the states who are affected. I am pretty sure all those rich ocean front property owners are stopping the drilling in coastal waters. If the bans were lifted lawsuits would be filed by the droves. I am not sure how you get around this situation.

Bush had I believe 8 lease blocks scheduled for lease sales in 2010. Obama dumped those lease sales and was initially was going to offer a small tract off of VA for lease sale in 2012...then he banned that.

I am sure there will be some resistance to offshore drilling but the states really have no say...they are federal waters and most rigs would never be in view of a coastline. There may be lawsuits but they would all be losers for the plaintiffs (see gulf coast). However, the fact that there may be lawsuits only makes the necessity of starting the process now more important than ever since these could lead to delays. As it is now a well is 5 years from drawing board to production.

[okie52]

It is not what you said......................Oil and Gas Boom that Obama can't kill is the title of the thread. I never ever claim production was up because of Obama, I just said they are up while he has been in office, YOU on the other hand claim he is trying to "Oil and Gas Boom that Obama can't kill". Kill means shut down, kill means dead, zero, nothing. Rightwing, oil exec talking point.

As for the coasts driverdog is right, been shut down for YEARS, till bush opened them up in 07 or 08. Do you really think Obama woke up one morning and said, hey I think I'll shut down drilling on the coasts for ****s and giggles? You really don't think the states don't want them either? SC has complianed but I cannot find anyother state that has, if you have a link to prove me wrong, I am willing to learn.

The title of the article was "an Oil and Gas Boom that Obama can't kill". I just posted the article. As I have stated I think he is severely hamstringing the oil and gas industry and I have given you a number of examples including his cap and trade attack on his new found friend NG along with his shutting down the coasts. I think Obama was always against drilling off of the coasts and only relented to public pressure when he offered the VA tract 2 years. And, of course, he reneged on that too. Obama wants green energy, not oil and gas, even when there are no viable green energy sources.

I imagine many states might object because they get absolutely no revenues from the royalties from offshore drilling. They do, however, get many jobs and some of the tax revenues those jobs will create. A coast landowner has no more say about a well being drilled in federal waters than he does about a well being drilled on the west side of his state.

By the way Icky-did you notice offshore lease bonus sales went from $9.5 billion in 2008 to $36 million last year? You think that might be hindering the oil and gas industry as well as the country?

[pphilfran]

Where would production be if restrictions were not in place?

A. The same as today.
B. More than today.
C. Less than today.
D. All of the above.

[okie52]

I'll go with B Alex.

[OU_Sooners75]

75, do you really think it is the American people or is it the people's representatives that are playing
the politics and partisanship under the guise that the people want this? Every sampling that I have
seen indicates the people are fed up, or getting that way quickly (88% congressional disapproval).
I think this election cycle will bring a sea change...a bunch of freshmen are gonna get tossed and
a bunch of long timers will, too. Can't happen soon enough!

I think a lot of the problem is our government enables this type of thinking by the vast majority of the American people.

I think so many people are taken for the ride because the politicians, the ones after an agenda, are telling the vast majority of the people what is best for them...Instead of the people knowing or actually caring what is best for them.

And in the process of this happening, enititlements and handouts show up.

IMO, its similar to the college football bowl system. We have now heard that the bowl committees spare no expense to keep the ADs and Presidents of Colleges/Universities in their back pockets. They offer enticements like cruises, gifts, and stuff like that. So naturally, the presidents and ADs wont want to change. They are getting good deals out of playing a game.

Much like the vast majority of the people in this Nation. The politicians have an agenda, and they will spare no expense to entice the voters to side with them on issues. Except in the politicians arsenal is things like enititlement programs (SS, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc). So naturally, when someone or something threatens to take it away, the people will not approve of it. On the flip side, when someone is willing to add to it, the people will back it even further.

Once this happens, and once people get used to free handouts, then they are enabled.

Our government is the biggest enabler I know of.

That is why I think it is time the American people take back our government by educating ourselves to ignore the desires of free stuff. It would be a hard choice to do. But for the US to grow economically and become self dependent, we need to do it.

I am not saying civil war by anymeans. But we need to start getting people in the proper positions that are not worried about filling their own pockets and agenda's, but the people's agenda.


If I am not making sense of my opinion, let me know. I have orked 9 straight days and I am mentally and physically drained. One more day to go and then a few days off. If I am not making sense, then I will better explain it after this weekend.

[StoopTroup]

My Gawd the blindness that this doubling of the National Debt is causing. Let's take a logical mathematical look at it.

Bush doubled it. Once you start a massive war the debt goes up. Then he leaves his 2nd term and you think he shouldn't get the entire blame for not only the cost of it while he's POTUS but you think you can sluff off the rest of it on Obama while he's trying to end it?

You are insane. From 5 to 15 it's all GWBs. Sure not all of President Obamas ideas and policies weren't great but I've been watching the news and these debates and GOPs are pushing for another War while you sit here trying to blame President Obama for the National Debt. Yes America had some nice salad days after WWII but we suffered during that War. Right now we are suffering because of War.

Take a deep breath and curtail your misguided hatred. Let President Obama end this mess. Send these liars back Home to their States. None of them are campaigning about what they are going to do for this Country. They are just campaigning about taking us into the past. There is a future. We are currently paying for the Bush past. Give Obama 4 years more and America will learn to let the threaten neighbors to Iran go fight and then ask for our help.

Japan attacked us. We put an end to that.
Bin Laden attacked us. We put an end to that

Saddam never attacked us. Look what the Bush Family has cost us?

[pphilfran]

We will be running trillion dollar deficits for the next decade...

CBO Estimates That the Federal Budget Deficit Totaled $578 Billion for the First Five Months of Fiscal Year 2012

The federal government incurred a budget deficit of $578 billion in the first five months of fiscal year 2012 (that is, October 2011 through February 2012), CBO estimates in its latest Monthly Budget Review—$63 billion less than the shortfall recorded for the same period last year. Without shifts in the timing of certain payments and in the recording of tax refunds, however, the deficit would have been close to $600 billion.

CBO Estimates That the Federal Budget Deficit Totaled $578 Billion for the First Five Months of Fiscal Year 2012

The federal government incurred a budget deficit of $578 billion in the first five months of fiscal year 2012 (that is, October 2011 through February 2012), CBO estimates in its latest Monthly Budget Review—$63 billion less than the shortfall recorded for the same period last year. Without shifts in the timing of certain payments and in the recording of tax refunds, however, the deficit would have been close to $600 billion.

[cleller]

My Gawd the blindness that this doubling of the National Debt is causing. Let's take a logical mathematical look at it.

Bush doubled it. Once you start a massive war the debt goes up. Then he leaves his 2nd term and you think he shouldn't get the entire blame for not only the cost of it while he's POTUS but you think you can sluff off the rest of it on Obama while he's trying to end it?

You are insane. From 5 to 15 it's all GWBs. Sure not all of President Obamas ideas and policies weren't great but I've been watching the news and these debates and GOPs are pushing for another War while you sit here trying to blame President Obama for the National Debt. Yes America had some nice salad days after WWII but we suffered during that War. Right now we are suffering because of War.

Take a deep breath and curtail your misguided hatred. Let President Obama end this mess. Send these liars back Home to their States. None of them are campaigning about what they are going to do for this Country. They are just campaigning about taking us into the past. There is a future. We are currently paying for the Bush past. Give Obama 4 years more and America will learn to let the threaten neighbors to Iran go fight and then ask for our help.

Japan attacked us. We put an end to that.
Bin Laden attacked us. We put an end to that

Saddam never attacked us. Look what the Bush Family has cost us?

I agree with the Saddam/Bush thing, but when you look at debt compared to GDP, WWII and Obama are in a league of their own:

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/debt.jpg

[diverdog]

I think a lot of the problem is our government enables this type of thinking by the vast majority of the American people.

I think so many people are taken for the ride because the politicians, the ones after an agenda, are telling the vast majority of the people what is best for them...Instead of the people knowing or actually caring what is best for them.

And in the process of this happening, enititlements and handouts show up.

IMO, its similar to the college football bowl system. We have now heard that the bowl committees spare no expense to keep the ADs and Presidents of Colleges/Universities in their back pockets. They offer enticements like cruises, gifts, and stuff like that. So naturally, the presidents and ADs wont want to change. They are getting good deals out of playing a game.

Much like the vast majority of the people in this Nation. The politicians have an agenda, and they will spare no expense to entice the voters to side with them on issues. Except in the politicians arsenal is things like enititlement programs (SS, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc). So naturally, when someone or something threatens to take it away, the people will not approve of it. On the flip side, when someone is willing to add to it, the people will back it even further.

Once this happens, and once people get used to free handouts, then they are enabled.

Our government is the biggest enabler I know of.

That is why I think it is time the American people take back our government by educating ourselves to ignore the desires of free stuff. It would be a hard choice to do. But for the US to grow economically and become self dependent, we need to do it.

I am not saying civil war by anymeans. But we need to start getting people in the proper positions that are not worried about filling their own pockets and agenda's, but the people's agenda.


If I am not making sense of my opinion, let me know. I have orked 9 straight days and I am mentally and physically drained. One more day to go and then a few days off. If I am not making sense, then I will better explain it after this weekend.

You orked nine straight days? That is a lot of orking. You need to stay away from the viagra my man!

[OU_Sooners75]

You orked nine straight days? That is a lot of orking. You need to stay away from the viagra my man!

LOL. Tell me about it!

But it is the price I pay in order to get the weekend off. Good thing is, I most likely will get my two regular days off next week, which is monday and tuesday. So may have 4 straight days off!

Woot!

[StoopTroup]

I agree with the Saddam/Bush thing, but when you look at debt compared to GDP, WWII and Obama are in a league of their own:

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/debt.jpg

It's a bit refreshing that you see that WWII and the post Bush / Iraq era is different. The biggest difference was that when we were taking out Saddam we scared the crap out of Iran. They had seen us stand up for Kuwait and knew we were Saudi Arabias Friends and that after the Iraq/Iran War that we felt Iran was just as much of a problem for the US and OPEC as Iraq. Iran came to the United Nations and Bush pleading to negotiate something that would avoid a War with the US. Cheney kept pushing for Dubya to get rid of the regime in Iran and install a new government like we did in Iraq. Because Iran opened up and agreed to anything that would avoid a War with the US it would have made Dubya look even more like a War Monger. Now I can't prove the Cheney or Rumsfeld were in the background pushing Dubya to add Iran to the "To Do List" but most folks believe that Dubya knew he couldn't sell a War with Iran unless provoked. Currently we see folks using this nuclear deal as a way to get the American Public's head wrapped about a "Red Scare" type of Iranian plan to have not only nuclear weapons but inter-continental ballistic platforms that make the US vulnerable to a nuclear attack by Iran.

Obama isn't having any of it and the GOP candidates continue to try and say President Obama is putting the US at risk while the National Debt is out of control and he's doing nothing about it. It's not true. We continue to elect Congressional members that hold up Presidents that try to do something different. If they and the lobbyist and unlimited financial supporters would open up to some different approaches instead of not giving a crap about what the middle class has to think, I think things would begin to turn around.

The thing that changed my opinion about the GOP happened when GHB said read my lips "No new taxes. Then he raised taxes. Now I wasn't upset that he did it as I think he had no choice. What got me was that he put himself in a corner as the Leader of the free world and then ended up looking weak by having to go against his promises. Presidents need to stop making these promises. Not only Presidents but really politicians. Right now nearly every GOP Politician has agreed to a No New Taxes approach that is a dream Grover Norquist had in 7th Grade.

Theorems, Axioms and deductive reasoning and even principles are things that are accepted practices in our World but Humans can't base everything on it to solve all their problems. We have to leave room for the things that arent rational or are suddenly unexpected. We must be able to adapt. Being rigid in thought isn't what made this Country great.

Yes keeping it simple is one approach but we are up against many different people's societal ills and vocets. America is a melting pot that used to enjoy the many differences that each of us have. These days we seem to want everyone to just accept that America is the greatest but we are no longer accepting new ideas. We are throwing up the very Berlin Walls on the Mexican Border in order to protect ourselves. We aren't making friends...we are making enemies. Yes we should protect ourselves of course but we shouldn't make enemies while doing it. Right now we are making more enemies south of the Mexican Border than ever before and GOP candidates want to concentrate on a War with Iran thus possibly weakening things here on the Home Front against Mexico who should be one of our very best allies.

I'm really worried that the last decade has been more about military might all over the World while we continue to send our National Guard Units into harms way instead of figuring out ways to promote patriotism and convincing qualified individuals to join the GuardOAS well as the Military so that we can have a very well 1st response here a Home should our friends from the South suddenly decide that they are no longer our friends.

[Turd_Ferguson]

The thing that changed my opinion about the GOP happened when GHB said read my lips "No new taxes. Then he raised taxes. Now I wasn't upset that he did it as I think he had no choice. What got me was that he put himself in a corner as the Leader of the free world and then ended up looking weak by having to go against his promises.Right, so how do you feel about the DNC?...or does Obama get a pass?

[rock on sooner]

I think a lot of the problem is our government enables this type of thinking by the vast majority of the American people.

I think so many people are taken for the ride because the politicians, the ones after an agenda, are telling the vast majority of the people what is best for them...Instead of the people knowing or actually caring what is best for them.

And in the process of this happening, enititlements and handouts show up.

IMO, its similar to the college football bowl system. We have now heard that the bowl committees spare no expense to keep the ADs and Presidents of Colleges/Universities in their back pockets. They offer enticements like cruises, gifts, and stuff like that. So naturally, the presidents and ADs wont want to change. They are getting good deals out of playing a game.

Much like the vast majority of the people in this Nation. The politicians have an agenda, and they will spare no expense to entice the voters to side with them on issues. Except in the politicians arsenal is things like enititlement programs (SS, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc). So naturally, when someone or something threatens to take it away, the people will not approve of it. On the flip side, when someone is willing to add to it, the people will back it even further.

Once this happens, and once people get used to free handouts, then they are enabled.

Our government is the biggest enabler I know of.

That is why I think it is time the American people take back our government by educating ourselves to ignore the desires of free stuff. It would be a hard choice to do. But for the US to grow economically and become self dependent, we need to do it.

I am not saying civil war by anymeans. But we need to start getting people in the proper positions that are not worried about filling their own pockets and agenda's, but the people's agenda.


If I am not making sense of my opinion, let me know. I have orked 9 straight days and I am mentally and physically drained. One more day to go and then a few days off. If I am not making sense, then I will better explain it after this weekend.

Well, with all due respect to orking, now in its 10th day, I agree to a certain extent about government
enabling. But, my contention is, the "enablees" are getting ready to kick the "enablers" out on their
collective arses, simply because they are tired, really tired about nothing getting done to solve the
many issues that confront us as a country. Dems aren't always right, but they're not always wrong,
either. There is a group of mostly Pubs that think the Dems ARE always wrong and have bullied
their way into the process and effectively brought the government to gridlock. The "enablees"
will identify them and, hopefully, toss them and put someone in place who thinks compromise is
not a four letter word and begin the long, hard road to fixing what ails us as a country.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Well, with all due respect to orking, now in its 10th day, I agree to a certain extent about government
enabling. But, my contention is, the "enablees" are getting ready to kick the "enablers" out on their
collective arses, simply because they are tired, really tired about nothing getting done to solve the
many issues that confront us as a country. Dems aren't always right, but they're not always wrong,
either. There is a group of mostly Pubs that think the Dems ARE always wrong and have bullied
their way into the process and effectively brought the government to gridlock. The "enablees"
will identify them and, hopefully, toss them and put someone in place who thinks compromise is
not a four letter word and begin the long, hard road to fixing what ails us as a country.You got something to back up that drivel, or are you just spewing?

[diverdog]

You got something to back up that drivel, or are you just spewing?

Is that all you got? Hit and run bullsh**?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Is that all you got? Hit and run bullsh**?Yeah, that's all I got...you gonna answer the question for her, or just run your mouth?

[TUSooner]

It's a bit refreshing that you see that WWII and the post Bush / Iraq era is different.... I'm really worried that the last decade has been more about military might all over the World while we continue to send our National Guard Units into harms way instead of figuring out ways to promote patriotism and convincing qualified individuals to join the GuardOAS well as the Military so that we can have a very well 1st response here a Home should our friends from the South suddenly decide that they are no longer our friends.
Too thoughtful!! :D

[diverdog]

Yeah, that's all I got...you gonna answer the question for her, or just run your mouth?


I'll get to her in due time as soon as I get done with you.

So do you want to be the husband or the wife?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'll get to her in due time as soon as I get done with you.

So do you want to be the husband or the wife?I'm married Ma'am, but thanks for the offer...I think.

[diverdog]

I'm married Ma'am, but thanks for the offer...I think.

Okay, not what I was expecting but made me spit coke out of my nose. Pretty funny.

[okie52]

Well, with all due respect to orking, now in its 10th day, I agree to a certain extent about government
enabling. But, my contention is, the "enablees" are getting ready to kick the "enablers" out on their
collective arses, simply because they are tired, really tired about nothing getting done to solve the
many issues that confront us as a country. Dems aren't always right, but they're not always wrong,
either. There is a group of mostly Pubs that think the Dems ARE always wrong and have bullied
their way into the process and effectively brought the government to gridlock. The "enablees"
will identify them and, hopefully, toss them and put someone in place who thinks compromise is
not a four letter word and begin the long, hard road to fixing what ails us as a country.

That just depends on how short term memoried the public will be regarding the enablers. I didn't see much come out of congress for the 2 years the dems had everything and by overwhelming margins.

Nope the dems aren't always wrong nor are the pubs even close to always being right. Based on important congressional legislation, I don't see the pubs being anymore responsible for the gridlock than the dems. If there were a few more Coburns around we might actually have a functional congress.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Okay, not what I was expecting but made me spit coke out of my nose. Pretty funny.:D

[rock on sooner]

You got something to back up that drivel, or are you just spewing?

The group of congresspeople elected in 2010, at the behest of Charlie Army, as Taxed
Enough Already, aka, TEA Party, voted in lockstep to stop every piece of legislation
that had ANY form of revenue enhancement, turning down, recently, a 10 for 1 offer
of $10 spending cut for $1 dollar tax increase. Now, I don't know for certain, but
I'm pretty sure that there are no Dems in the TEA Party wing of the Pubs, but,Turd,
(as I'm sure you will) please correct me if I'm wrong.:playful:

[StoopTroup]

Right, so how do you feel about the DNC?...or does Obama get a pass?

I'm not happy with them either. However I supported Bush and our Military after 9-11-01. We had to respond to OBLs attacks. I even bought into Dubya putting an end to Saddams threats to the Bush Family. What I didn't agree with was the build a Democracracy and the inked finger voting booths and ten years of occupation and War that followed Hussien's capture.

McCain lost the 2008 election because the American public wanted an end to the Iraq War. Obama did exactly that. So no Obama doesn't get a pass but in 3 years he put an end to the Iraq War and I won't give him any credit for OBL but he did disappear while President Obama was in office. These things are facts. I guess you can spin them and we can argue about **** but at the end of the day they were things I as an American wanted to see happen.

Another thing that I do think that occurred was after the bailout the Executives that took bonuses had buses of Americans walking the public streets outside their houses and left them complaining and worried for their safety. Now...is that right? No more than it was for that Lotto Winner to take Food Stamps IMO but it happened and some of those Execs even turned the money back in when they realized that it wasn't worth taking money like that even if legally they could have kept it.

The bailouts all seemed to have worked and most of the money has been paid back is my understanding. At least GM seems to have been one of the success stories anyway.
I'm worried about mass transpotation in this Country. I think the experiment of deregulating the Airlines has run its course and that we should be looking to regulate the industry again will help General Aviation begin to further grow. I can see many small businesses grow again now that the lifetime liability issues are gone. The up side would also be the Government assistance and regulation would push to require Airlines to replace old technology with more efficient powerplants and aircraft designs. I would also like to see NASAs budget doubled. I think it's important to the future of this Country. I don't think folks understand the mess we have made in space and the advances we have made because of all of our visits into space.

I don't see the GOP thinking like that. I see their answers to things are mostly to do with War. Not so much with the DNC.

[rock on sooner]

Well, Stoup, I think NASA needs to have specific missions going forward...certainly no moon colony
but the ISS needs to continue with active participation from us...really do not like depending on
Russia for transport. The Pubs don't want to publicly admit it but, you're right, the bailouts, for
the most part, did what they were supposed to do.

You know, Dubya, using our human treasure as he did to "fix" Saddam was simply wrong. He lost
sight of Bin Laden, gave the wrong direction to our military...could have "fixed" Saddam covertly
and kept eyes on Bin Laden and let the 10th Mountain Division "fix" him when they had him cornered.
How many billions would not have been spent?! That's all history, obviously.

There is a LOT of war mongering from the GOP, but I think the thought process is incomplete, at the
very least. Not sure why McCain is banging on his desk so much...truly makes no sense. Hopefully,
Obama and the Isrealis have more smarts, or at least put two battlegroups in place to keep the Straits
open, because Iran will try to shut that down. Would not want to be a driver of the "fast boats",
when Aegis fire control is locked on.

[okie52]

I'm not happy with them either. However I supported Bush and our Military after 9-11-01. We had to respond to OBLs attacks. I even bought into Dubya putting an end to Saddams threats to the Bush Family. What I didn't agree with was the build a Democracracy and the inked finger voting booths and ten years of occupation and War that followed Hussien's capture.

McCain lost the 2008 election because the American public wanted an end to the Iraq War. Obama did exactly that. So no Obama doesn't get a pass but in 3 years he put an end to the Iraq War and I won't give him any credit for OBL but he did disappear while President Obama was in office. These things are facts. I guess you can spin them and we can argue about **** but at the end of the day they were things I as an American wanted to see happen.

Another thing that I do think that occurred was after the bailout the Executives that took bonuses had buses of Americans walking the public streets outside their houses and left them complaining and worried for their safety. Now...is that right? No more than it was for that Lotto Winner to take Food Stamps IMO but it happened and some of those Execs even turned the money back in when they realized that it wasn't worth taking money like that even if legally they could have kept it.

The bailouts all seemed to have worked and most of the money has been paid back is my understanding. At least GM seems to have been one of the success stories anyway.
I'm worried about mass transpotation in this Country. I think the experiment of deregulating the Airlines has run its course and that we should be looking to regulate the industry again will help General Aviation begin to further grow. I can see many small businesses grow again now that the lifetime liability issues are gone. The up side would also be the Government assistance and regulation would push to require Airlines to replace old technology with more efficient powerplants and aircraft designs. I would also like to see NASAs budget doubled. I think it's important to the future of this Country. I don't think folks understand the mess we have made in space and the advances we have made because of all of our visits into space.

I don't see the GOP thinking like that. I see their answers to things are mostly to do with War. Not so much with the DNC.

Better study your history a little better. W and Iraq had signed the agreement for withdrawal of US troops and the take over by Iraqi troops long before Obama ever sniffed the White House. Obama didn't get in the way and screw it up like he has with energy so he deserves credit for that. And Obama did get Osama. And he did end the war in Afghanistan.

[olevetonahill]

Better study your history a little better. W and Iraq had signed the agreement for withdrawal of US troops and the take over by Iraqi troops long before Obama ever sniffed the White House. Obama didn't get in the way and screw it up like he has with energy so he deserves credit for that. And Obama did get Osama. And he did end the war in Afghanistan.

He Did? The ****in CIA with Seal Team 6 Got OBL. And If the Afghanistan war is OVER , why we still got Troops Dying there?

[Turd_Ferguson]

He Did? The ****in CIA with Seal Team 6 Got OBL.

:D

2602

[olevetonahill]

:D

2602
HEH

[okie52]

He Did? The ****in CIA with Seal Team 6 Got OBL. And If the Afghanistan war is OVER , why we still got Troops Dying there?

I was just having a little fun with ST. I do give credit for Obama on the bin laden hit making the call to proceed even though it was in Pakistan. Afghanistan? Well Obama hasn't ended that war in his 1st 3 years and certainly won't do it in 4 years.

And then we have Libya where he helped bring down Qaddafi...but he may have just replaced him with someone worse...know one knows....