Poor voters won't vote for Romney....according to him

[Skysooner]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Yes, I know this is to his own party's millionaires, but it feels pretty honest for Romney. Much of his base is poor and doesn't pay taxes just like the people he vilifies on here. This doesn't make him look very good.

[okie52]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Yes, I know this is to his own party's millionaires, but it feels pretty honest for Romney. Much of his base is poor and doesn't pay taxes just like the people he vilifies on here. This doesn't make him look very good.

I dont think he vilified these people...just stating what he is up against on the lower 50% that don't pay taxes. Every crossover he or a pub gets is a bonus. ..you know, as the dems like to say...people voting against their own self interest.

[Skysooner]

I dont think he vilified these people...just stating what he is up against on the lower 50% that don't pay taxes. Every crossover he or a pub gets is a bonus. ..you know, as the dems like to say...people voting against their own self interest.

Agreed. Vilify might be the wrong word. This just won't play well to some people. I don't really care. I definitely pay lots of taxes, and I lean Democrat in many ways.

[diverdog]

I dont think he vilified these people...just stating what he is up against on the lower 50% that don't pay taxes. Every crossover he or a pub gets is a bonus. ..you know, as the dems like to say...people voting against their own self interest.

Okie:

A lot of those people are working poor and I would bet some of them work a lot harder than Mitt Romney. In Oklahoma alone $1.8 million dollars was spent of food stamps for military personnel.

[okie52]

Okie:

A lot of those people are working poor and I would bet some of them work a lot harder than Mitt Romney. In Oklahoma alone $1.8 million dollars was spent of food stamps for military personnel.

And you missed the point. Of course some poor people vote repub but by and large the majority of them are going to lean dem when it comes to those that are dependent on the guv. Luckily some people vote for what they think is best for the country rather than their own pocketbook.

[okie52]

Agreed. Vilify might be the wrong word. This just won't play well to some people. I don't really care. I definitely pay lots of taxes, and I lean Democrat in many ways.

Probably won't play well for a while but I thought he was dead on about what he said...unfortunately about the only time Mitt gets some gumption about something he is saying it in private (or thinks he is).

There are a lot of rich dems and rich repubs. Just very different ideologies on what is best for the country. I could live with a lot dem social positions and some fiscal ones, too. But since I am usually a target of their anger I doubt I'll be voting for them anytime soon.

[yermom]

And you missed the point. Of course some poor people vote repub but by and large the majority of them are going to lean dem when it comes to those that are dependent on the guv. Luckily some people vote for what they think is best for the country rather than their own pocketbook.

so you expect the poor to vote against their pocketbooks for the greater good?

[diverdog]

And you missed the point. Of course some poor people vote repub but by and large the majority of them are going to lean dem when it comes to those that are dependent on the guv. Luckily some people vote for what they think is best for the country rather than their own pocketbook.

You mean like all the rich guys and corporations who hire tons of lobbyist to get tax shelters?

[okie52]

You mean like all the rich guys and corporations who hire tons of lobbyist to get tax shelters?

Not a good analogy there diver since they would be promoting only their own self interests. Something more like a green energy guy supporting realistic energy sources because it is better for the country or the farmer not voting for an ethanol supporter.

[yermom]

*woosh*

[FaninAma]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Yes, I know this is to his own party's millionaires, but it feels pretty honest for Romney.
Much of his base is poor and doesn't pay taxes just like the people he vilifies on here. This doesn't make him look very good.

At the rate the percentage of non-payers of federal income taxes is increasing the rate is expected to hit 55% by 2016. You can whine about social justice and fairness all you want but a system that has that many non-contributors is not sustainable.

I find itinteresting that the dogmatic left continues to operate on pure emotion and refuses to consider 3 facts:
1. The country is broke
2. More and more people are becoming dependent on government handouts to get by.
3. The first 2 facts are not mutually exclussive.

I have no great love for Romney. I prefer him slightly over Obama but at least his campaign is talking about the deficit and spending issues. Obama's sole answer to these daunting problems is "Tax the Rich" even though it has been shown over and over that will not raise enough revenue to keep the country from running up trillion dollar debts very year.

[FaninAma]

You mean like all the rich guys and corporations who hire tons of lobbyist to get tax shelters?

And which party is anti-corporation or anti-super rich. It isn't the GOP but it sure isn't the democrats, either.

[okie52]

so you expect the poor to vote against their pocketbooks for the greater good?

Some do. Some would see the need to reduce entitlements to reduce debt even if it meant less government handouts or, god forbid, they'd actually have to pay some income taxes.

Some will vote against their pocketbooks for religious, social and/ or ideological reasons.

But most won't vote against their pocketbooks regardless of the impact to the country.

[FaninAma]

Okie52, what is discouraging is the liklihood that those in this group that have kids or grandkids either do not care or have no understanding of the impact that deficit social spending will have on future generations.

[prrriiide]

And you missed the point. Of course some poor people vote repub but by and large the majority of them are going to lean dem when it comes to those that are dependent on the guv. Luckily some people vote for what they think is best for the country rather than their own pocketbook.

That's because the Dems at least have the common decency to use lube and give a man a reach-around.

[diverdog]

And which party is anti-corporation or anti-super rich. It isn't the GOP but it sure isn't the democrats, either.

My point is that a lot of people vote for their own self interest. It isn't just the poor.

[marfacowboy]

I dont think he vilified these people...just stating what he is up against on the lower 50% that don't pay taxes. Every crossover he or a pub gets is a bonus. ..you know, as the dems like to say...people voting against their own self interest.

Of course he did, and this is rich considering his tax payment record. He disparages veterans, the elderly, the poor...basically anyone that depends on government assistance.

He's a callous, short sighted human being with little or no understanding whatsoever about how the poor actually live, day to day.

[marfacowboy]

Okie52, what is discouraging is the liklihood that those in this group that have kids or grandkids either do not care or have no understanding of the impact that deficit social spending will have on future generations.

AGAIN, the GOP has not presented a plan that reduces the deficit or addresses these issues. Even one of their top campaign aides admitted the plan was "weak on specifics."

This is going to be the case until the population numbers reverse. It will eventually lead to the decline and fall of America as a power, because it's not sustainable and it's especially not sustainable as long as human populations increase. You need more land, more water, more fuel, more jobs, more teachers, etc. and we'll produce more poor people along the way. There's not enough resources even for the people that are capable of staying out of poverty.

Neither Obama or Romney is addressing these long term problems. Obama thinks there's a magic technological fix. There's not. Romney's worse. He thinks we can just keep drilling for oil, ****ing and having a gazillion more kids the note's never coming due.

[Skysooner]

At the rate the percentage of non-payers of federal income taxes is increasing the rate is expected to hit 55% by 2016. You can whine about social justice and fairness all you want but a system that has that many non-contributors is not sustainable.

I find itinteresting that the dogmatic left continues to operate on pure emotion and refuses to consider 3 facts:
1. The country is broke
2. More and more people are becoming dependent on government handouts to get by.
3. The first 2 facts are not mutually exclussive.

I have no great love for Romney. I prefer him slightly over Obama but at least his campaign is talking about the deficit and spending issues. Obama's sole answer to these daunting problems is "Tax the Rich" even though it has been shown over and over that will not raise enough revenue to keep the country from running up trillion dollar debts very year.

Here is the thing about this group that Romney is talking about. The vast majority of them are hardworking (albeit at low paying jobs). There are always the people that game the system and rely on the system without need, and those are the people that should be thrown out.

Just because someone doesn't pay income tax really comes back to the tax code. People pay sales taxes, use taxes (hotel rooms), property taxes, etc. There are the tax deductions that eventually make it so that someone doesn't pay tax. We generally all get those unless your income is above a certain level. Pretty much everyone is shielding a portion of their income so to denigrate all such people as reliable voting Democrats is just plain out-of-touch. Of course many of them are, and they vote their economic self-interest (although imo the Democrats are no better than the Republicans on all of this). For where I am at, I have the luxury of voting for the candidate as most of the time both parties treat the high wage earners the same (within a range anyway).

I'm not whining about social justice or fairness. I just don't think he quite gets it or really understands what it is like to have no food on the table (a position I was in many times as a child). The country is broke yes. If the pols would just get off their *** and act, there are just a few changes that need to be made to bring us back into financial solvency if done in the near term. Entitlements have to be on the table for cuts. The system is unsustainable as it is.

[rock on sooner]

Here is the thing about this group that Romney is talking about. The vast majority of them are hardworking (albeit at low paying jobs). There are always the people that game the system and rely on the system without need, and those are the people that should be thrown out.

Just because someone doesn't pay income tax really comes back to the tax code. People pay sales taxes, use taxes (hotel rooms), property taxes, etc. There are the tax deductions that eventually make it so that someone doesn't pay tax. We generally all get those unless your income is above a certain level. Pretty much everyone is shielding a portion of their income so to denigrate all such people as reliable voting Democrats is just plain out-of-touch. Of course many of them are, and they vote their economic self-interest (although imo the Democrats are no better than the Republicans on all of this). For where I am at, I have the luxury of voting for the candidate as most of the time both parties treat the high wage earners the same (within a range anyway).

I'm not whining about social justice or fairness. I just don't think he quite gets it or really understands what it is like to have no food on the table (a position I was in many times as a child). The country is broke yes. If the pols would just get off their *** and act, there are just a few changes that need to be made to bring us back into financial solvency if done in the near term. Entitlements have to be on the table for cuts. The system is unsustainable as it is.

Great post! I would add one overlooked little tidbit..the one demographic
that Romney does well in is the 65 and over crowd...MANY of whom are on
SS and/or fixed income and many of those fall into the 47% he's talking
about...so he really did state it "inelegantly."

[XingTheRubicon]

Great post! I would add one overlooked little tidbit..the one demographic
that Romney does well in is the 65 and over crowd...MANY of whom are on
SS and/or fixed income and many of those fall into the 47% he's talking
about...so he really did state it "inelegantly."

Yeah, but they spent a lifetime paying in to that "fixed income and/or SS"

People that work and are successful will vote for Romney.

People that fail in life, blame ^them^ and vote for Obama.

[okie52]

That's because the Dems at least have the common decency to use lube and give a man a reach-around.

That's not true. The non taxpayers can't afford the lube.

[marfacowboy]

Yeah, but they spent a lifetime paying in to that "fixed income and/or SS"

People that work and are successful will vote for Romney.

People that fail in life, blame ^them^ and vote for Obama.

All generalizations are false.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yeah, but they spent a lifetime paying in to that "fixed income and/or SS"

People that work and are successful will vote for Romney.

People that fail in life, blame ^them^ and vote for Obama.


A high wage pub earner can max out SS income, die and his(or her) younger pub trophy spouse may get this max SS income for decades - even though the pub trophy spouse didn't "spend a lifetime paying in." Pub trophy spouse may not have paid a dime into the system.

[okie52]

Of course he did, and this is rich considering his tax payment record. He disparages veterans, the elderly, the poor...basically anyone that depends on government assistance.

He's a callous, short sighted human being with little or no understanding whatsoever about how the poor actually live, day to day.

Now, now, lets not get emotional. He said 47% don't pay income taxes. Is that true? And how are most of those people likely to vote...assuming they aren't disenfranchised and actually make it to the polls?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Can any of you believe how incompetent the Romney campaign has become?

They are floundering against Jimmy Carter II!

[pphilfran]

Can any of you believe how incompetent the Romney campaign has become?

They are floundering against Jimmy Carter II!

They are operating like a non oiled machine...

[okie52]

AGAIN, the GOP has not presented a plan that reduces the deficit or addresses these issues. Even one of their top campaign aides admitted the plan was "weak on specifics."

This is going to be the case until the population numbers reverse. It will eventually lead to the decline and fall of America as a power, because it's not sustainable and it's especially not sustainable as long as human populations increase. You need more land, more water, more fuel, more jobs, more teachers, etc. and we'll produce more poor people along the way. There's not enough resources even for the people that are capable of staying out of poverty.

Neither Obama or Romney is addressing these long term problems. Obama thinks there's a magic technological fix. There's not. Romney's worse. He thinks we can just keep drilling for oil, ****ing and having a gazillion more kids the note's never coming due.

Hmmm...has either candidate proposed population reduction? Has any candidate? Which candidate wants to increase the US population by 12,000,000 people that have the highest birthrates of any demographic? So drilling for oil and NG is the wrong idea? What would be the alternative?

[badger]

My point is that a lot of people vote for their own self interest. It isn't just the poor.

Sideshow Bob: Your guilty consciences may force you to vote Democratic, but secretly you yearn for a cold-hearted Republican who’ll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! You need me, Springfield!

[cleller]

A high wage pub earner can max out SS income, die and his(or her) younger pub trophy spouse may get this max SS income for decades - even though the pub trophy spouse didn't "spend a lifetime paying in." Pub trophy spouse may not have paid a dime into the system.

This is true for a high wage Dem earner, too. Nothing partisan about it. SS was established with widows in mind.

[marfacowboy]

Hmmm...has either candidate proposed population reduction? Has any candidate? Which candidate wants to increase the US population by 12,000,000 people that have the highest birthrates of any demographic? So drilling for oil and NG is the wrong idea? What would be the alternative?

Go back and read my post again.

[marfacowboy]

Now, now, lets not get emotional. He said 47% don't pay income taxes. Is that true? And how are most of those people likely to vote...assuming they aren't disenfranchised and actually make it to the polls?

He said his "job is not to worry about those people."

He's basically written off half of the population. A President has to be a President to all of the people. This man isn't fit to be President.

[okie52]

He said his "job is not to worry about those people."

He's basically written off half of the population. A President has to be a President to all of the people. This man isn't fit to be President.

His campaign strategy isn't to pursue their vote which is a wise decision. Now Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" is somehow an inclusive statement about how Obama wants to care for the rural Americans. But he's fit to be president...right?

[okie52]

Go back and read my post again.


Neither Obama or Romney is addressing these long term problems. Obama thinks there's a magic technological fix. There's not. Romney's worse. He thinks we can just keep drilling for oil, ****ing and having a gazillion more kids the note's never coming due.

I did...did I miss something?

[pphilfran]

He said his "job is not to worry about those people."

He's basically written off half of the population. A President has to be a President to all of the people. This man isn't fit to be President.

To be honest...he is a business man...

In business you should devote most of your time and resources to those that are successful and less time and resources to those that are not as successful....

I am not saying you disregard the low performers only that you put most of your energy into those that will bring the organization the most reward...and by increasing the reward to the business the low performers also see an increase...

[marfacowboy]

To be honest...he is a business man...

In business you should devote most of your time and resources to those that are successful and less time and resources to those that are not as successful....

I am not saying you disregard the low performers only that you put most of your energy into those that will bring the organization the most reward...and by increasing the reward to the business the low performers also see an increase...

This is a nation, not a business. Contrary to the popular myth, you can't run a nation like a business, although many politicians and business people attempt it. They open markets using the military, and if they could, would "fire" people by eliminating them from society the same way they eliminate people from a job.
Corporations have one sole purpose, to return shareholder value.
The purpose of a nation and a government is to provide security and well being for its people by protecting them from threats, both internal and external.

[TitoMorelli]

I definitely pay lots of taxes, and I lean Democrat in many ways.

That's what comes from not gettin' enough oxygen to your brain up where you live.:sneakiness:

[marfacowboy]

I did...did I miss something?

Yes, you stated, "has either candidate proposed population reduction? Has any candidate?"

I pretty clearly indicated neither candidate, and therefore no major candidate was proposing such a thing. Jill Stein has probably addressed it, but she's a non-factor.
So, I agree with you.

"So drilling for oil and NG is the wrong idea? What would be the alternative?"

You can't drill your way to energy independence. We've discussed this ad nauseam in another thread. We should continue to drill, but focus on a more balanced plan that includes reduced use and reduced populations. We need more mass transit, and we need to reconstruct our communities so people live closer to work. We can also use the Internet to support more work at home models and reduce fuel use.
Who wants to sit in traffic all day?

[pphilfran]

This is a nation, not a business. Contrary to the popular myth, you can't run a nation like a business, although many politicians and business people attempt it. They open markets using the military, and if they could, would "fire" people by eliminating them from society the same way they eliminate people from a job.
Corporations have one sole purpose, to return shareholder value.
The purpose of a nation and a government is to provide security and well being for its people by protecting them from threats, both internal and external.

Not saying he is right or wrong...but our current course of action has failed and to continue to do things the same way might not give us the results we need...

If we, as a nation, focused on the successful and helped them build their business even further we would probably see more people hired, higher rates of pay, and an overall improvement in society...

As it is we are now focusing on the less well off which does little to cause the economy to grow...and growth in GDP is the only thing going to save our ***...

[marfacowboy]

His campaign strategy isn't to pursue their vote which is a wise decision. Now Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" is somehow an inclusive statement about how Obama wants to care for the rural Americans. But he's fit to be president...right?

I think Obama has tried to represent all people. His stimulus plan actually worked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?smid=pl-share) and it helped middle America.

[pphilfran]

Our government has far overstepped it bounds which you state correctly..."provide security and well being for it's people by protecting them from threats, both internal and external."

[pphilfran]

I think Obama has tried to represent all people. His stimulus plan actually worked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?smid=pl-share) and it helped middle America.

Based on the many trillions he had to spend his stimulus has been a failure...

[pphilfran]

I think Obama has tried to represent all people. His stimulus plan actually worked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?smid=pl-share) and it helped middle America.

He has not tried to represent all people...he rails on the rich and the productive...wants to raise energy prices which hurt the poor...printing money that will only lower the lifestyles of the middle class...fails to control the border and allows undocumented labor to lower the lowest wages...

Her talks a big game but his actions fail to meet his rhetoric...

[marfacowboy]

Not saying he is right or wrong...but our current course of action has failed and to continue to do things the same way might not give us the results we need...

If we, as a nation, focused on the successful and helped them build their business even further we would probably see more people hired, higher rates of pay, and an overall improvement in society...

As it is we are now focusing on the less well off which does little to cause the economy to grow...and growth in GDP is the only thing going to save our ***...

The current course of action has actually worked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?smid=pl-share), to a degree at least. It's not perfect, but it could have been a lot worse.
I don't think it matters who is in the White House long term. We have some very deep, core problems no one in the mainstream media or political system is addressing. We can't sustain economic growth ad infinitum. At some point, we need greater diversity in the economy, and we need to move closer to a steady state economic system.
·We must address the educational system, which directly affects poverty and welfare with a system of trade and professional schools. Not everyone is cut out for a university education. We have to stop lying to ourselves.
·We have to ween our economic system off of military spending. The whole system is propped up by it. Precisely what Eisenhower warned would happen has happened.
·Temporarily, we need some sort of New Deal program to put people back to work, retrain them, and then move them back into the private sector with new skills.
·Once we're in full recovery mode, we need major deficit reduction, something neither party is providing enough specifics on.
·Construction and development should be focused on redevelopment of infrastructure and rebuilding our communities so people can live closer to work, use less fuel and have better lifestyles.
·I think we need a four day work week. People are too focused on making money and not enough on spending time with their families and enjoying their hobbies. Hard work is a virtue, but being obsessed with work is a detriment.

[pphilfran]

He gives auto rebates on energy efficient vehicles that help the well off but hurt the poor that can't afford the efficient car...

Gives energy rebates to only those that can afford the home solar systems or additional insulation...while the poor can't afford the upgrades and get hit with higher costs with no recourse...

[okie52]

Yes, you stated, "has either candidate proposed population reduction? Has any candidate?"

I pretty clearly indicated neither candidate, and therefore no major candidate was proposing such a thing. Jill Stein has probably addressed it, but she's a non-factor.
So, I agree with you.

"So drilling for oil and NG is the wrong idea? What would be the alternative?"

You can't drill your way to energy independence. We've discussed this ad nauseam in another thread. We should continue to drill, but focus on a more balanced plan that includes reduced use and reduced populations. We need more mass transit, and we need to reconstruct our communities so people live closer to work. We can also use the Internet to support more work at home models and reduce fuel use.
Who wants to sit in traffic all day?

You actually can drill your way to energy independence and if Obama would get the hell out of the way we could achieve it in the next decade or so. Is it sustainable... sure, for a while, maybe 100 to 200 years. Even with a population 1/10 of our size it would not be permanently sustainable. Mass transit actually requires high population densities to be cost effective which to my way of thinking is counterintuitive to wanting reduced populations.

Maybe the internet will provide a reduction in the need for commute. It probably already is.

[TitoMorelli]

Amazing that Obama has been resorting to a campaign based on class warfare/envy (since he can't run on his administration's accomplishments) since even before the primaries, yet Romney is now criticized for what some perceive as doing the same thing.

[marfacowboy]

He has not tried to represent all people...he rails on the rich and the productive...wants to raise energy prices which hurt the poor...printing money that will only lower the lifestyles of the middle class...fails to control the border and allows undocumented labor to lower the lowest wages...

Her talks a big game but his actions fail to meet his rhetoric...

What about all those jobs he saved at GM? He created or saved 2.5 million jobs. He probably kept a million or more people in their homes. Yes, he's target the super rich to pay more taxes, and they should. That's hardly "railing on the rich and the productive."

[TitoMorelli]

Yeah, marfa, the NYT has long been held up as a paragon of objective reporting, especially everything written on its opinion pages.

[marfacowboy]

You actually can drill your way to energy independence and if Obama would get the hell out of the way we could achieve it in the next decade or so. Is it sustainable... sure, for a while, maybe 100 to 200 years. Even with a population 1/10 of our size it would not be permanently sustainable. Mass transit actually requires high population densities to be cost effective which to my way of thinking is counterintuitive to wanting reduced populations.

Maybe the internet will provide a reduction in the need for commute. It probably already is.

No geologist on the planet agrees with you. Every report I've read points to the inescapable fact that at some point, and we don't know what that point is yet, it starts to take more energy and cost more money to recover the oil and market it as a usable product. That's a net energy sink and is not sustainable.

[pphilfran]

The current course of action has actually worked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?smid=pl-share), to a degree at least. It's not perfect, but it could have been a lot worse.
I don't think it matters who is in the White House long term. We have some very deep, core problems no one in the mainstream media or political system is addressing. We can't sustain economic growth ad infinitum. At some point, we need greater diversity in the economy, and we need to move closer to a steady state economic system.
·We must address the educational system, which directly affects poverty and welfare with a system of trade and professional schools. Not everyone is cut out for a university education. We have to stop lying to ourselves.
·We have to ween our economic system off of military spending. The whole system is propped up by it. Precisely what Eisenhower warned would happen has happened.
·Temporarily, we need some sort of New Deal program to put people back to work, retrain them, and then move them back into the private sector with new skills.
·Once we're in full recovery mode, we need major deficit reduction, something neither party is providing enough specifics on.
·Construction and development should be focused on redevelopment of infrastructure and rebuilding our communities so people can live closer to work, use less fuel and have better lifestyles.
·I think we need a four day work week. People are too focused on making money and not enough on spending time with their families and enjoying their hobbies. Hard work is a virtue, but being obsessed with work is a detriment.

He only worked because he had unlimited spending...give me trillions to work with and I am sure I could have had similar results, if not better...he was short on actual stimulus...we should have had a couple dozen major projects instead of a billion small projects like putting in sidewalks in Hastings, Ok...which I watched get built over many months...

[marfacowboy]

Yeah, marfa, the NYT has long been held up as a paragon of objective reporting, especially everything written on its opinion pages.

Facts are facts. Dispute the numbers with facts, not hyperbole and generalizations.

[TitoMorelli]

What about all those jobs he saved at GM? He created or saved 2.5 million jobs. He probably kept a million or more people in their homes. Yes, he's target the super rich to pay more taxes, and they should. That's hardly "railing on the rich and the productive."

Keep on trollin', bro.

[marfacowboy]

He only worked because he had unlimited spending...give me trillions to work with and I am sure I could have had similar results, if not better...he was short on actual stimulus...we should have had a couple dozen major projects instead of a billion small projects like putting in sidewalks in Hastings, Ok...which I watched get built over many months...

Well, I think he should have spent more. But to say he completely failed or that we're not better off than we were in 2008 is simply not true.

[pphilfran]

What about all those jobs he saved at GM? He created or saved 2.5 million jobs. He probably kept a million or more people in their homes. Yes, he's target the super rich to pay more taxes, and they should. That's hardly "railing on the rich and the productive."

i have no problem bailing out GM...though we waited far too long and it should have happened during Bush's watch and saved them from burning through billions...

He also saved Chrysler...and then sold them to Fiat...so Fiat could have an immediate dealer network in the US..so Fiat now has a network to compete with GM and Ford....

He rails on the rich and productive...everyone must sacrifice.. or so he says...

[marfacowboy]

Keep on trollin', bro.

How is a response to question, a response with facts and data, "trolling?"
This is what happens to conservatives when they are confronted with the truth. You start crawfishin', purposefully avoiding the debate because you're out of ammo. Your last resort is to label everything "trolling."
Why are you so willfully ignorant?
"Follow the truth no matter where it leads you." -Edward Abbey

[marfacowboy]

i have no problem bailing out GM...though we waited far too long and it should have happened during Bush's watch and saved them from burning through billions...

He also saved Chrysler...and then sold them to Fiat...so Fiat could have an immediate dealer network in the US..so Fiat now has a network to compete with GM and Ford....

He rails on the rich and productive...everyone must sacrifice.. or so he says...

And Romney wanted them to fail. How can you possibly support this man?

[pphilfran]

Well, I think he should have spent more. But to say he completely failed or that we're not better off than we were in 2008 is simply not true.

He failed to do what he promised...and he had unlimited funding to meet his goals....

He knew up front that it was "the worst recession since the depression" so he damn sure knew what he was up against...yet he had failed to get GDP growth up to where it needs to be to lower unemployment...he lost focus on the priority in getting the economy up and running....

[okie52]

I think Obama has tried to represent all people. His stimulus plan actually worked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?smid=pl-share) and it helped middle America.

BS. He hasn't tried to represent me. He hasn't tried to protect American citizens from illegal immigration, rather he has tried enable their illicit behavior. And he is trying to add these overbreeders to our population which is contrary to our agreed upon "reduced population". He hasn't pursued energy independence he has fought it with his closing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to exploration and passing a unilateral CAp and trade bill in the house...a bill so monstrously misguided that it would have punished the middle class and poor and damaged our industry at the height of the recession. He has wasted billions on fantasy green jobs that never materialized while denying thousands of real jobs that require no subsidies.

[marfacowboy]

He failed to do what he promised...and he had unlimited funding to meet his goals....

He knew up front that it was "the worst recession since the depression" so he damn sure knew what he was up against...yet he had failed to get GDP growth up to where it needs to be to lower unemployment...he lost focus on the priority in getting the economy up and running....

So, we're going to vote for a guy who's plan would have created even more damage?

[pphilfran]

And Romney wanted them to fail. How can you possibly support this man?

They did fail...they both filed for bankruptcy...they both shut down plants and dealerships...

[pphilfran]

I have made it plain...I am voting against all incumbents...

[marfacowboy]

BS. He hasn't tried to represent me. He hasn't tried to protect American citizens from illegal immigration, rather he has tried enable their illicit behavior. And he is trying to add these overbreeders to our population which is contrary to our agreed upon "reduced population". He hasn't pursued energy independence he has fought it with his closing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to exploration and passing a unilateral CAp and trade bill in the house...a bill so monstrously misguided that it would have punished the middle class and poor and damaged our industry at the height of the recession. He has wasted billions on fantasy green jobs that never materialized while denying thousands of real jobs that require no subsidies.

The immigration problem is serious. On one hand, you have these desperate people, and children that are here by no fault of their own. It's heartbreaking.
On the other hand, you have the uncomfortable fact that we cannot continue to allow them to come here. There are too many people here already.
Neither Obama or Romney has a plan for this. Both of them should start with repealing NATA, but they don't want to do that. It pisses me off, because they're both basically giving lip service to the problem and neither are apparently capable of dealing with it sensibly and with compassion.

[marfacowboy]

I have made it plain...I am voting against all incumbents...

I'm voting for Jill Stein. So, we agree on something...to a degree.

[okie52]

No geologist on the planet agrees with you. Every report I've read points to the inescapable fact that at some point, and we don't know what that point is yet, it starts to take more energy and cost more money to recover the oil and market it as a usable product. That's a net energy sink and is not sustainable.

****, most geologists agree with what I said. Did you bother to even read my post? No finite resource is permanently sustainable but we have a 100-200 year supply of NG right NOW without any further geological discoveries. Hell, Obama even admits we have a 100 year supply of NG.

[marfacowboy]

They did fail...they both filed for bankruptcy...they both shut down plants and dealerships...

GM didn't fail. It paid back its loans and got through a difficult period. That's how government and business are supposed to function in this country. Government has to step in when significant private industries are at risk.
There is no "free market." There never has been a "free market." Study the economic history of this country, and you will find that private industry and markets have ALWAYS been propped up by the government.
Oklahoma is perhaps the biggest example.

[TitoMorelli]

How is a response to question, a response with facts and data, "trolling?"
This is what happens to conservatives when they are confronted with the truth. You start crawfishin', purposefully avoiding the debate because you're out of ammo. Your last resort is to label everything "trolling."
Why are you so willfully ignorant?
"Follow the truth no matter where it leads you." -Edward Abbey

Sorry, I must have missed the SF memo informing posters that from now on, mindlessly pushing opinion pieces without actually backing up your support with actual evidence now qualifies on this board as "facts and data."

[okie52]

I'm voting for Jill Stein. So, we agree on something...to a degree.

Oh good God. You found logic in her laughable policies? Get out your flintstone car.

[FaninAma]

AGAIN, the GOP has not presented a plan that reduces the deficit or addresses these issues. Even one of their top campaign aides admitted the plan was "weak on specifics."

This is going to be the case until the population numbers reverse. It will eventually lead to the decline and fall of America as a power, because it's not sustainable and it's
especially not sustainable as long as human populations increase. You need more land, more water, more fuel, more jobs, more teachers, etc. and we'll produce more poor people along the way. There's not enough resources even for the people that are capable of staying out of poverty.

Neither Obama or Romney is addressing these long term problems. Obama thinks there's
a magic technological fix. There's not. Romney's worse. He thinks we can just keep drilling for oil, ****ing and having a gazillion more kids the note's never coming due.

I don't disagree with anything you said. We, as voters and the ultimate arbiters of government power should demand better but we let the 2 political parties manipulate through emotion, bribery and fatigue to their partisanship.

My points still stand. We are going more broke every day. There are more and more individuals becoming all too dependent on government payments. These 2 trends cannot continue for much longer.

[Skysooner]

No geologist on the planet agrees with you. Every report I've read points to the inescapable fact that at some point, and we don't know what that point is yet, it starts to take more energy and cost more money to recover the oil and market it as a usable product. That's a net energy sink and is not sustainable.

Actually he is right. If we are talking natural gas alone, we probably have 200 years at current usage rates. Oil there is roughly 30 years supply currently in the US at a marginal cost of supply of around $60 (all this without exporting a thing). This whole revolution in our industry is only just starting to be exploited outside the US. There will be abundant natural gas and oil for years to come. Eventually it will run out, and we need to put in R&D for different eneryg sources. This stuff is extremely cutting edge and actually I would say very few people in the world truly understand it. This is my primary work field, and the study my team does every year is one of those things that doesn't ever get distributed but I haven't seen an in-depth study of this type ever publicly released.

[Skysooner]

I don't disagree with anything you said. We, as voters and the ultimate arbiters of government power should demand better but we let the 2 political parties manipulate through emotion, bribery and fatigue to their partisanship.

My points still stand. We are going more broke every day. There are more and more individuals becoming all too dependent on government payments. These 2 trends cannot continue for much longer.

Completely concur.

[pphilfran]

GM didn't fail. It paid back its loans and got through a difficult period. That's how government and business are supposed to function in this country. Government has to step in when significant private industries are at risk.
There is no "free market." There never has been a "free market." Study the economic history of this country, and you will find that private industry and markets have ALWAYS been propped up by the government.
Oklahoma is perhaps the biggest example.

WTF are you talking about...the old GM is no more...they went belly up and came out of BK as a new entity...they had a new IPO in Nov 2010...the old GM was folded into MTLQQ (Motors Liquidation Company)..

You should do some research before spouting off...

[okie52]

Jill Stein on the issues.


We can't wait 4 more years to address climate change. (Jan 2012)
National ban on fracking; natural gas is not clean. (Jan 2012)
No evidence that carbon sequestration solves climate crisis. (Jan 2012)
Let states prevent nuclear power plants. (Jan 2012)
World War II-scale mobilization to reduce carbon burden. (Jan 2012)
Renewable energy is win-win for economy & national security. (Dec 2011)
Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive. (Dec 2011)
Logging wood for electricity is neither clean nor green. (Sep 2010


Provide a legal path to citizenship for immigrant residents. (Feb 2012)
End the war on immigrants; end "secure communities" cruelty. (Jan 2012)
Undocumented immigrants are critical component of economy. (Dec 2011)
No pathway to citizenship for criminals; open to all others. (Dec 2011)


Stimulus spent $220K per job; I propose $20K per green job. (Jan 2012)
Economic Bill of Rights: unionize; fair taxation; fair trade. (Jan 2012)
Full Employment Program: green jobs and community needs. (Jan 2012)
Green New Deal: emergency program for 25M jobs. (Dec 2011)
Require living wage. (Nov 2001)


Yep, she's a real pragmatist...a visionary. And 25,000,000 green jobs.

[Skysooner]

I'm voting for Jill Stein. So, we agree on something...to a degree.

I took this online test the other day to find out which candidate I agreed with most. I had never heard of Jill Stein which I am shocked at now. I was at Obama 84%, Stein 82%, Johnson 44% and Romney 33%. I guess you can solidly call me a Democrat now. However I still don't agree at all with the far left wing of the party.

[marfacowboy]

****, most geologists agree with what I said. Did you bother to even read my post? No finite resource is permanently sustainable but we have a 100-200 year supply of NG right NOW without any further geological discoveries. Hell, Obama even admits we have a 100 year supply of NG.

A 100 year supply means not sustainable. Only one third of geologists at the Geological Society believe their are sufficient supplies to keep us going indefinitely. 1/3
But forget the geology. It's also a geo-political problem. There's a big article in Forbes this month about it. There's huge risk, particularly in places like Brazil. (9-18-12, Energy)

[marfacowboy]

Jill Stein on the issues.







Yep, she's a real pragmatist...a visionary. And 25,000,000 green jobs.

No point in even debating her positions. We'll never agree and she has no chance. Might as well save some time and move on.

[yermom]

I don't disagree with anything you said. We, as voters and the ultimate arbiters of government power should demand better but we let the 2 political parties manipulate through emotion, bribery and fatigue to their partisanship.

My points still stand. We are going more broke every day. There are more and more individuals becoming all too dependent on government payments. These 2 trends cannot continue for much longer.

i don't care than much about the bottom end, the system abusers. i'd rather see another option for people that are willing and do work. the haves keep finding ways to keep the have-nots where they are and making more of them to get more zeros at the end of their net worths

when the rich stop selling out the poor at such a high rate, then maybe less people will need handouts.

[marfacowboy]

WTF are you talking about...the old GM is no more...they went belly up and came out of BK as a new entity...they had a new IPO in Nov 2010...the old GM was folded into MTLQQ (Motors Liquidation Company)..

You should do some research before spouting off...

They're still producing product and those people have jobs. It may look different on paper, but American businesses use bankruptcy all the time to reinvent themselves. It's a financial tool, not a capitulation.
Have you ever managed a company through a bankruptcy?

[marfacowboy]

Actually he is right. If we are talking natural gas alone, we probably have 200 years at current usage rates. Oil there is roughly 30 years supply currently in the US at a marginal cost of supply of around $60 (all this without exporting a thing). This whole revolution in our industry is only just starting to be exploited outside the US. There will be abundant natural gas and oil for years to come. Eventually it will run out, and we need to put in R&D for different eneryg sources. This stuff is extremely cutting edge and actually I would say very few people in the world truly understand it. This is my primary work field, and the study my team does every year is one of those things that doesn't ever get distributed but I haven't seen an in-depth study of this type ever publicly released.

No, he's not right, and we're talking about oil, not natural gas.
There is NO REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSIL FUEL. None. No other energy source delivers the same punch for the price.

[pphilfran]

They're still producing product and those people have jobs. It may look different on paper, but American businesses use bankruptcy all the time to reinvent themselves. It's a financial tool, not a capitulation.
Have you ever managed a company through a bankruptcy?

You are the one that said they did not fail...and they did...I offered facts and you offered rhetoric...are you going to admit you were wrong or continue a poor attempt at backtracking?

Thousands of companies go bankrupt and continue to operate...it happens all of the time....

I have no problems with the money we loaned them...I do take exception to the time lag in the filing...and selling Chrysler to Fiat was a terrible call...I would have given the company to a US operating team before I sold them to Fiat...

[pphilfran]

No, he's not right, and we're talking about oil, not natural gas.
There is NO REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSIL FUEL. None. No other energy source delivers the same punch for the price.

What are we going to use as a replacement?

[Skysooner]

No, he's not right, and we're talking about oil, not natural gas.
There is NO REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSIL FUEL. None. No other energy source delivers the same punch for the price.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel...

No, there is no replacement in terms of certain high ends, but there are 4 trillion barrels in the US that can be extracted in the $100-$120 range which isn't even counted in the numbers. Those also don't count heavy oil in Alberta. We do need to replace things to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, but it isn't like we run out of oil in 10 years in this country. We have time to R&D and get ourselves in a great place with a long-term renewable supply that decreases our dependence on fossil fuel. There are vast resources untapped in shale oil around the world. I know a bunch more about this than you do simply because of the work I do (I have advanced degrees in geology, petroleum engineering and business administration along with a statistics background). This work we do is about 8 man years each year and is done with a view towards determining where we invest and how we invest.

[Soonerjeepman]

He only worked because he had unlimited spending...give me trillions to work with and I am sure I could have had similar results, if not better...he was short on actual stimulus...we should have had a couple dozen major projects instead of a billion small projects like putting in sidewalks in Hastings, Ok...which I watched get built over many months...

yup or new 4 ft curb sections in Overland Park Ks...while taking out perfectly GOOD curbs...or a new highway interchange out in the middle of NO WHERE...yeah great use of stimulus...

[pphilfran]

Natural gas is a fossil fuel...

No, there is no replacement in terms of certain high ends, but there are 4 trillion barrels in the US that can be extracted in the $100-$120 range which isn't even counted in the numbers. Those also don't count heavy oil in Alberta. We do need to replace things to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, but it isn't like we run out of oil in 10 years in this country. We have time to R&D and get ourselves in a great place with a long-term renewable supply that decreases our dependence on fossil fuel. There are vast resources untapped in shale oil around the world. I know a bunch more about this than you do simply because of the work I do (I have advanced degrees in geology, petroleum engineering and business administration along with a statistics background). This work we do is about 8 man years each year and is done with a view towards determining where we invest and how we invest.

I am done with the fool....

[marfacowboy]

What are we going to use as a replacement?

Like I said, there isn't one. Better use it wisely.
Maybe the livery will make a come back.

[marfacowboy]

Natural gas is a fossil fuel...

No, there is no replacement in terms of certain high ends, but there are 4 trillion barrels in the US that can be extracted in the $100-$120 range which isn't even counted in the numbers. Those also don't count heavy oil in Alberta. We do need to replace things to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, but it isn't like we run out of oil in 10 years in this country. We have time to R&D and get ourselves in a great place with a long-term renewable supply that decreases our dependence on fossil fuel. There are vast resources untapped in shale oil around the world. I know a bunch more about this than you do simply because of the work I do (I have advanced degrees in geology, petroleum engineering and business administration along with a statistics background). This work we do is about 8 man years each year and is done with a view towards determining where we invest and how we invest.

Yes, natural gas is a fossil fuel. I never said it wasn't.
When I say there are no replacements, I mean for oil. There isn't one. Read the Forbes article.
You feel confident there's enough oil that can be affordably refined and delivered as product indefinitely? Enough to support unlimited growth in every industrial society in the world?

[marfacowboy]

I am done with the fool....'

I hate rude behavior in a man.

[okie52]

No, he's not right, and we're talking about oil, not natural gas.
There is NO REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSIL FUEL. None. No other energy source delivers the same punch for the price.

We are talking about energy and energy independence...not some fairy tale. While we can produce enough oil to become energy independent it is ridiculous not to take advantage of converting a large segment of our transportation sector to NG where we have incredible reserves. Now that is a 1-200 year supply with known reserves and certainly would provide much more time for our economy to shift to some new energy technology that would be developed in the next 100-200 years. You support someone that would demand use of an energy source that would quadruple energy costs, crush the middle and lower class, and not produce anywhere near enough energy to meet our needs.

[TitoMorelli]

I hate rude behavior in a man.

Yeah, phil, after you've butt-raped a fellow SF member in political debate, forum etiquette demands that you should at least say thanks.

[marfacowboy]

We are talking about energy and energy independence...not some fairy tale. While we can produce enough oil to become energy independent it is ridiculous not to take advantage of converting a large segment of our transportation sector to NG where we have incredible reserves. Now that is a 1-200 year supply with known reserves and certainly would provide much more time for our economy to shift to some new energy technology that would be developed in the next 100-200 years. You support someone that would demand use of an energy source that would quadruple energy costs, crush the middle and lower class, and not produce anywhere near enough energy to meet our needs.

You need crude for every can of Coke. Every pill. Every car. Every crop. Do you believe there are unlimited supplies of oil, oil that can be affordably refined and delivered indefinitely to every industrial nation on the planet?

[Skysooner]

Yes, natural gas is a fossil fuel. I never said it wasn't.
When I say there are no replacements, I mean for oil. There isn't one. Read the Forbes article.

I don't need to read the Forbes article. I have 23 years in this business and am fully aware of what we have and don't have and what oil is and means to the country. That's why I push NG so hard as we have vast supplies of it and haven't even really scratched the surface yet. I am all for renewables and building our use of them through proper R&D, mpg standards for cars, switching transportation to natural gas vehicles or electric vehicles (primarily electricity is coal or NG driven). I just don't want to bankrupt the country by rushing to do this. A Manhattan Project for renewables is not necessary since we don't have an immediate threat. Let's make this country an economic power again through building up new industries. We aren't that far apart honestly.

[pphilfran]

'

I hate rude behavior in a man.

A man admits when he is wrong...a man looks at facts and does not fail to see both sides...you do neither of those things...

[marfacowboy]

Yeah, phil, after you've butt-raped a fellow SF member in political debate, forum etiquette demands that you should at least say thanks.

Butt-raped? Hardly.
And what have you done? Nothing but throw spit-wads, because you're apparently largely ignorant and don't have an single worthwhile thing to contribute. It must be awful knowing you're deficient in scientific, geological, historical and political knowledge.
The good news is there's still time. Go back to college. Enroll in a good liberal arts program.

[marfacowboy]

A man admits when he is wrong...a man looks at facts and does not fail to see both sides...you do neither of those things...

I'm not wrong about anything. We simply don't agree.

[pphilfran]

I'm not wrong about anything. We simply don't agree.

GM failed...there is no other way around it...

[TitoMorelli]

Butt-raped? Hardly.
And what have you done? Nothing but throw spit-wads, because you're apparently largely ignorant and don't have an single worthwhile thing to contribute. It must be awful knowing you're deficient in scientific, geological, historical and political knowledge.
The good news is there's still time. Go back to college. Enroll in a good liberal arts program.

Either pull up your pants and go your merry way, or bend over again and get ready for another. Because everybody else on this thread knows who got owned.

[okie52]

You need crude for every can of Coke. Every pill. Every car. Every crop. Do you believe there are unlimited supplies of oil, oil that can be affordably refined and delivered indefinitely to every industrial nation on the planet?

2/3 of our crude is used for transportation, 1/3 for products. By switching a large portion of our transportation to NG we thereby free up a lot more oil for products. That won't be done by renewables or green energy in the next half century but it can be done by NG. And it will significantly reduce CO2 which Stein will fail to recognize. NG already reduced CO2 by 20% in the last 3 1/2 years with no dumbed down cap and trade.

Try a little pragmatism.

[marfacowboy]

I don't need to read the Forbes article. I have 23 years in this business and am fully aware of what we have and don't have and what oil is and means to the country. That's why I push NG so hard as we have vast supplies of it and haven't even really scratched the surface yet. I am all for renewables and building our use of them through proper R&D, mpg standards for cars, switching transportation to natural gas vehicles or electric vehicles (primarily electricity is coal or NG driven). I just don't want to bankrupt the country by rushing to do this. A Manhattan Project for renewables is not necessary since we don't have an immediate threat. Let's make this country an economic power again through building up new industries. We aren't that far apart honestly.

Well, the article is relevant, because it brings to light some interesting economic and geo-political issues affecting the industry. Perhaps you know all of these. I'll assume you do.
But I find the notion "there's no immediate threat so there's no need to worry," (it seems as if that's what you're saying) more than slightly myopic.
Electric vehicles, particularly hydrogen fuel cells, have a net energy sink. Negative EROEI. You'll never get the same result with alternatives to crude. It's costing more to develop it than what it can be sold for.

[marfacowboy]

Either pull up your pants and go your merry way, or bend over again and get ready for another. Because everybody else on this thread knows who got owned.

I'm not here to "win" a debate. I'm here to discuss relevant issues. Go back to your cartoons.

[marfacowboy]

GM failed...there is no other way around it...

The company, which is primarily its products and its people, survived. Haven't you ever heard that old saying "a company is its people?"
Bankruptcy was used as a tool to save the company. Period and the end. You're arguing semantics and being overly legalistic, because you don't want to admit Obama did anything right. You're a stubborn as a ****ing mule.

[pphilfran]

The company, which is primarily its products and its people, survived. Haven't you ever heard that old saying "a company is its people?"
Bankruptcy was used as a tool to save the company. Period and the end. You're arguing semantics and being overly legalistic, because you don't want to admit Obama did anything right. You're a stubborn as a ****ing mule.

WTF are you talking about...I agree with the bailout...it should have happened on Bush's watch....

But the old GM is no more...they failed...they are history...they filed bankruptcy...they are no more...

You are the one ignoring facts and talking semantics...ergo a fool...

[olevetonahill]

Butt-raped? Hardly.
And what have you done? Nothing but throw spit-wads, because you're apparently largely ignorant and don't have an single worthwhile thing to contribute. It must be awful knowing you're deficient in scientific, geological, historical and political knowledge.
The good news is there's still time. Go back to college. Enroll in a good liberal arts program.


I'm not wrong about anything. We simply don't agree.


I'm not here to "win" a debate. I'm here to discuss relevant issues. Go back to your cartoons.

LAS is that you? LAS?

[okie52]

I took this online test the other day to find out which candidate I agreed with most. I had never heard of Jill Stein which I am shocked at now. I was at Obama 84%, Stein 82%, Johnson 44% and Romney 33%. I guess you can solidly call me a Democrat now. However I still don't agree at all with the far left wing of the party.

Obviously the test was not very heavily energy related.

[Skysooner]

Well, the article is relevant, because it brings to light some interesting economic and geo-political issues affecting the industry. Perhaps you know all of these. I'll assume you do.
But I find the notion "there's no immediate threat so there's no need to worry," (it seems as if that's what you're saying) more than slightly myopic.
Electric vehicles, particularly hydrogen fuel cells, have a net energy sink. Negative EROEI. You'll never get the same result with alternatives to crude. It's costing more to develop it than what it can be sold for.

Totally agree on the electric vehicles. That's why we need hardcore R&D. That is where government money should be going to. Many people don't understand what the role of government should be. Many don't think they had anything to do with the shale gas and shale oil revolution. There was actually an article in this month's World Oil that said it was primarily government funding of outside R&D that allowed for the revolution to happen. I wish I could link it, but it is password protected. This was government action over decades.

I wouldn't say myopic. Here is what is basically happening. All of this oil and natural gas that the geologists talk about is what we call conventional oil or potentially coalbed methane gas. This is oil or natural gas that was produced in source rocks (primarily shales) and then migrated out of these shales into rocks that have void space (porosity) and interstitial pathways for flowing (permeability). What has happened since 2001 for natural gas and 2008 or so for oil is that we have the ability to now go into shales and produce the oil and natural gas through more complex fracking than was done in the previous 70 years. This is all economic in the United States at this time as we have infinitely more pipeline capacity than most other countries in the world. In a matter of 5 years we have gone from importing all of our oil to an incline in oil production just due to the beginning of this technology. With the process improvements we are seeing, this resource is just going to increase. There are millions of acres being leased up in Oklahoma and Kansas just to get at some of this oil (primarily the Mississippian reservoir). All of this source rock potential exists in every oil and natural gas producing region in the world. Romania had the Ploesti oil fields, and there is a source for that oil.

All of that oil that the Middle East has? There is likely 5 to 10 times that locked in source rocks below the conventional rocks. They don't go after it as it is still cheaper for them to produce oil out of the conventional reservoirs. The situation is not nearly as dire as we make it out to be. This isn't even talking about gas hydrates, tar sands oil, etc. No, nothing is infinite, but we aren't going to run out or even be constrained for anytime soon. We are actually looking at oil differentials in this country to world crude prices up to negative $20-$25/bbl due to just the ability to move it to the refineries.

Let's find the next energy source and make it econonic and either a neutral or positive energy sink.

[Skysooner]

Obviously the test was not very heavily energy related.

No, it wasn't. I was actually shocked by the results. Still what I believe personally and what is sustainable by the country are two different things. I'm all for the country doing well, so I took the results with a grain of salt.

[marfacowboy]

WTF are you talking about...I agree with the bailout...it should have happened on Bush's watch....

But the old GM is no more...they failed...they are history...they filed bankruptcy...they are no more...

You are the one ignoring facts and talking semantics...ergo a fool...

Do you understand how bankruptcy works? Again, I'll ask the question, have you ever managed a corporation through bankruptcy? Been in the meetings with lawyers, the Board, accountants?
What if everyone said, "We failed! We failed! We are no more! We are no more! Let's go home."
But they didn't. They're all still in the same jobs, making the same amount of money and producing product.
This discussion is over.

[pphilfran]

Totally agree on the electric vehicles. That's why we need hardcore R&D. That is where government money should be going to. Many people don't understand what the role of government should be. Many don't think they had anything to do with the shale gas and shale oil revolution. There was actually an article in this month's World Oil that said it was primarily government funding of outside R&D that allowed for the revolution to happen. I wish I could link it, but it is password protected. This was government action over decades.

I wouldn't say myopic. Here is what is basically happening. All of this oil and natural gas that the geologists talk about is what we call conventional oil or potentially coalbed methane gas. This is oil or natural gas that was produced in source rocks (primarily shales) and then migrated out of these shales into rocks that have void space (porosity) and interstitial pathways for flowing (permeability). What has happened since 2001 for natural gas and 2008 or so for oil is that we have the ability to now go into shales and produce the oil and natural gas through more complex fracking than was done in the previous 70 years. This is all economic in the United States at this time as we have infinitely more pipeline capacity than most other countries in the world. In a matter of 5 years we have gone from importing all of our oil to an incline in oil production just due to the beginning of this technology. With the process improvements we are seeing, this resource is just going to increase. There are millions of acres being leased up in Oklahoma and Kansas just to get at some of this oil (primarily the Mississippian reservoir). All of this source rock potential exists in every oil and natural gas producing region in the world. Romania had the Ploesti oil fields, and there is a source for that oil.

All of that oil that the Middle East has? There is likely 5 to 10 times that locked in source rocks below the conventional rocks. They don't go after it as it is still cheaper for them to produce oil out of the conventional reservoirs. The situation is not nearly as dire as we make it out to be. This isn't even talking about gas hydrates, tar sands oil, etc. No, nothing is infinite, but we aren't going to run out or even be constrained for anytime soon. We are actually looking at oil differentials in this country to world crude prices up to negative $20-$25/bbl due to just the ability to move it to the refineries.

Let's find the next energy source and make it econonic and either a neutral or positive energy sink.

Good stuff...you are a true asset to the board...

[marfacowboy]

Totally agree on the electric vehicles. That's why we need hardcore R&D. That is where government money should be going to. Many people don't understand what the role of government should be. Many don't think they had anything to do with the shale gas and shale oil revolution. There was actually an article in this month's World Oil that said it was primarily government funding of outside R&D that allowed for the revolution to happen. I wish I could link it, but it is password protected. This was government action over decades.

I wouldn't say myopic. Here is what is basically happening. All of this oil and natural gas that the geologists talk about is what we call conventional oil or potentially coalbed methane gas. This is oil or natural gas that was produced in source rocks (primarily shales) and then migrated out of these shales into rocks that have void space (porosity) and interstitial pathways for flowing (permeability). What has happened since 2001 for natural gas and 2008 or so for oil is that we have the ability to now go into shales and produce the oil and natural gas through more complex fracking than was done in the previous 70 years. This is all economic in the United States at this time as we have infinitely more pipeline capacity than most other countries in the world. In a matter of 5 years we have gone from importing all of our oil to an incline in oil production just due to the beginning of this technology. With the process improvements we are seeing, this resource is just going to increase. There are millions of acres being leased up in Oklahoma and Kansas just to get at some of this oil (primarily the Mississippian reservoir). All of this source rock potential exists in every oil and natural gas producing region in the world. Romania had the Ploesti oil fields, and there is a source for that oil.

All of that oil that the Middle East has? There is likely 5 to 10 times that locked in source rocks below the conventional rocks. They don't go after it as it is still cheaper for them to produce oil out of the conventional reservoirs. The situation is not nearly as dire as we make it out to be. This isn't even talking about gas hydrates, tar sands oil, etc. No, nothing is infinite, but we aren't going to run out or even be constrained for anytime soon. We are actually looking at oil differentials in this country to world crude prices up to negative $20-$25/bbl due to just the ability to move it to the refineries.

Let's find the next energy source and make it econonic and either a neutral or positive energy sink.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, except I'm not convinced these sources can be safely developed at a decent price point. I just prefer to be sensible about use, because there are so many unknowns. I feel like our society is somewhat like an ongoing frat party. We're just boozing it up and thinking the party is going to continue forever. The liquor stores are still open. We can always send someone on a liquor run.
Conservation makes economic sense. Why people love spending money unnecessarily on fuel is something I'll never understand.

[Skysooner]

I don't disagree with anything you've said, except I'm not convinced these sources can be safely developed at a decent price point. I just prefer to be sensible about use, because there are so many unknowns. I feel like our society is somewhat like an ongoing frat party. We're just boozing it up and thinking the party is going to continue forever. The liquor stores are still open. We can always send someone on a liquor run.
Conservation makes economic sense. Why people love spending money unnecessarily on fuel is something I'll never understand.


There are always questions about it and of course petroleum is never completely clean. As much as we want to be, it is a dirty business but not nearly as much so as coal. Also our ecological footprint is decreasing as we speak. We can now develop 4 sections from one 5 acre pad versus several hundred acres prior to this. We are drilling horizontally and unlocking more with more efficient drilling, etc. Totally agree on the energy usage. We need all of those mpg restrictions, more efficient engines and work this so that we can get by with less energy much more efficiently. Energy is usually the second largest cost for any manufacturing base or company. Make that less, and we all profit. Plus with the way the world's population is going there is only so much for everybody.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

This is true for a high wage Dem earner, too. Nothing partisan about it. SS was established with widows in mind.

Single and gay couple high wage earners pay more than their fair share for the widow's welfare.

[marfacowboy]

There are always questions about it and of course petroleum is never completely clean. As much as we want to be, it is a dirty business but not nearly as much so as coal. Also our ecological footprint is decreasing as we speak. We can now develop 4 sections from one 5 acre pad versus several hundred acres prior to this. We are drilling horizontally and unlocking more with more efficient drilling, etc. Totally agree on the energy usage. We need all of those mpg restrictions, more efficient engines and work this so that we can get by with less energy much more efficiently. Energy is usually the second largest cost for any manufacturing base or company. Make that less, and we all profit. Plus with the way the world's population is going there is only so much for everybody.

Do you think certain areas, such as BLM land or National Parks, should be off limits?

[okie52]

Totally agree on the electric vehicles. That's why we need hardcore R&D. That is where government money should be going to. Many people don't understand what the role of government should be. Many don't think they had anything to do with the shale gas and shale oil revolution. There was actually an article in this month's World Oil that said it was primarily government funding of outside R&D that allowed for the revolution to happen. I wish I could link it, but it is password protected. This was government action over decades.

I wouldn't say myopic. Here is what is basically happening. All of this oil and natural gas that the geologists talk about is what we call conventional oil or potentially coalbed methane gas. This is oil or natural gas that was produced in source rocks (primarily shales) and then migrated out of these shales into rocks that have void space (porosity) and interstitial pathways for flowing (permeability). What has happened since 2001 for natural gas and 2008 or so for oil is that we have the ability to now go into shales and produce the oil and natural gas through more complex fracking than was done in the previous 70 years. This is all economic in the United States at this time as we have infinitely more pipeline capacity than most other countries in the world. In a matter of 5 years we have gone from importing all of our oil to an incline in oil production just due to the beginning of this technology. With the process improvements we are seeing, this resource is just going to increase. There are millions of acres being leased up in Oklahoma and Kansas just to get at some of this oil (primarily the Mississippian reservoir). All of this source rock potential exists in every oil and natural gas producing region in the world. Romania had the Ploesti oil fields, and there is a source for that oil.

All of that oil that the Middle East has? There is likely 5 to 10 times that locked in source rocks below the conventional rocks. They don't go after it as it is still cheaper for them to produce oil out of the conventional reservoirs. The situation is not nearly as dire as we make it out to be. This isn't even talking about gas hydrates, tar sands oil, etc. No, nothing is infinite, but we aren't going to run out or even be constrained for anytime soon. We are actually looking at oil differentials in this country to world crude prices up to negative $20-$25/bbl due to just the ability to move it to the refineries.

Let's find the next energy source and make it econonic and either a neutral or positive energy sink.

Sky, I can't remember on the shales why they were non economic for so many years...was it low permeability?

[Skysooner]

Do you think certain areas, such as BLM land or National Parks, should be off limits?

National parks absolutely. BLM it just depends on environmental sensitivity. We drill on BLM lands in Wyoming all of the time, but we have severe restrictions on drilling during certain times (i.e. sage/grouse reproduction season). I am all for responsible land development and all for protecting lands as well. I don't mind government protection as long as it isn't to the point of ridiculousness. The Lander office of the BLM is notorious for blocking most anything just due to the local regulator. Most of the oil and natural gas we are going for currently is on private lands, so it hasn't been a problem. If/when we ever need to go for the heavy oil in NW Colorado and NE Utah this is going to be an issue. Fortunately that is years in the future with our current supply, and we may never need to decide on that. I fully expect renewables and the energy sector to transform itself over the next 20 years.

[Skysooner]

Sky, I can't remember on the shales why they were non economic for so many years...was it low permeability?

Very little interconnected porosity, so yes it was low permeability. The gels we were using would plug these spaces. What you have to remember is the spaces in shales are often only 3 or 4 times as large as the smallest molecule of oil or natural gas. How we are working this is almost like taking a sledge hammer to the shale. These shales often have natural fractures running through them. What we do with the fracking is simply opening these up more. We call the area we are fracking the stimulated rock volume. The recovery from a well is almost totally proportional to the stimulated rock volume. This SRV basically is akin to a blood vessel network in the human body. The more complexity the better as with current technology we are only reaching about 1-2 feet away from any fracture whether natural or created. This fracking it is less about propped length than just getting volume out there.

[okie52]

National parks absolutely. BLM it just depends on environmental sensitivity. We drill on BLM lands in Wyoming all of the time, but we have severe restrictions on drilling during certain times (i.e. sage/grouse reproduction season). I am all for responsible land development and all for protecting lands as well. I don't mind government protection as long as it isn't to the point of ridiculousness. The Lander office of the BLM is notorious for blocking most anything just due to the local regulator. Most of the oil and natural gas we are going for currently is on private lands, so it hasn't been a problem. If/when we ever need to go for the heavy oil in NW Colorado and NE Utah this is going to be an issue. Fortunately that is years in the future with our current supply, and we may never need to decide on that. I fully expect renewables and the energy sector to transform itself over the next 20 years.

So are you against drilling on ANWR?

[pphilfran]

Do you understand how bankruptcy works? Again, I'll ask the question, have you ever managed a corporation through bankruptcy? Been in the meetings with lawyers, the Board, accountants?
What if everyone said, "We failed! We failed! We are no more! We are no more! Let's go home."
But they didn't. They're all still in the same jobs, making the same amount of money and producing product.
This discussion is over.


Tell that to the old GM stockholders that lost every penny....

[okie52]

Very little interconnected porosity, so yes it was low permeability. The gels we were using would plug these spaces. What you have to remember is the spaces in shales are often only 3 or 4 times as large as the smallest molecule of oil or natural gas. How we are working this is almost like taking a sledge hammer to the shale. These shales often have natural fractures running through them. What we do with the fracking is simply opening these up more. We call the area we are fracking the stimulated rock volume. The recovery from a well is almost totally proportional to the stimulated rock volume. This SRV basically is akin to a blood vessel network in the human body. The more complexity the better as with current technology we are only reaching about 1-2 feet away from any fracture whether natural or created. This fracking it is less about propped length than just getting volume out there.

But Hydraulic fracking wouldn't really have much impact on poor porosity, would it?

[Skysooner]

So are you against drilling on ANWR?

ANWR can be developed just fine. My question is where are they going to get the pipeline capacity to get this oil down to the ports. I'm not an Alaskan expert by any means. This is all based on outside readings so no direct personal knowledge. Plus at this point the marginal cost of drilling ANWR is much more than the shale oil we have down here. Marginal cost up there is around $80-$90/bbl vs. $30-$60 in the Permian basin and Oklahoma. Wells up there cost $128-$155 million per well.

[marfacowboy]

Tell that to the old GM stockholders that lost every penny....

They gambled and lost. If they couldn't afford it, they probably shouldn't have been in it.

[marfacowboy]

But Hydraulic fracking wouldn't really have much impact on poor porosity, would it?

That sounds like "water" to me. Where's all this water coming from in arid areas of the west, for example?

[Skysooner]

Good stuff...you are a true asset to the board...

Thank you

[Skysooner]

But Hydraulic fracking wouldn't really have much impact on poor porosity, would it?

None at all. Just think of it as cracking a window. It is the fracture network that connects with pore porosity that enables production. Remember that we are also engaging an in situ fracture network. Shales are generally cracked early in life as the hydrocarbons build up pressure and escape. It is just the stuff that remains that we are going after. It is considerable though.

[Skysooner]

That sounds like "water" to me. Where's all this water coming from in arid areas of the west, for example?

Fracking is done with water yes. Denver is a desert, we find water here. No doubt that water treating is an issue. Pennsylvania doesn't have many water disposal wells, so there water treatment plans treat the water before it goes back into the water shed. The main issue is capacity. In certain areas the lack of water is an issue and if it becomes expensive enough, there is no economic fracking. Some problems solve themselves.

[pphilfran]

They gambled and lost. If they couldn't afford it, they probably shouldn't have been in it.

How could they lose every penny if the company didn't fail?

[XingTheRubicon]

Phil, he doesn't understand. He won't tomorrow, either.

[marfacowboy]

How could they lose every penny if the company didn't fail?

Your definition of failure and mine are different. You're looking at it from a strictly legalistic point of view. The company went into bankruptcy and therefore failed. This is reductive and insufficient.
I would view it as a "failure" if all of those people had lost their jobs and the people that owned GM cars could no longer get service. They did not. The company reorganized and still serves its employees and customers today. That's what bankruptcy is. Reorganization.

[marfacowboy]

Phil, he doesn't understand. He won't tomorrow, either.

You're clueless. You just don't like me because I'm liberal, and you'll look for any excuse to "pile on," even if you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

[marfacowboy]

Fracking is done with water yes. Denver is a desert, we find water here. No doubt that water treating is an issue. Pennsylvania doesn't have many water disposal wells, so there water treatment plans treat the water before it goes back into the water shed. The main issue is capacity. In certain areas the lack of water is an issue and if it becomes expensive enough, there is no economic fracking. Some problems solve themselves.

Where is "here?"

[olevetonahill]

Your definition of failure and mine are different. You're looking at it from a strictly legalistic point of view. The company went into bankruptcy and therefore failed. This is reductive and insufficient.
I would view it as a "failure" if all of those people had lost their jobs and the people that owned GM cars could no longer get service. They did not. The company reorganized and still serves its employees and customers today. That's what bankruptcy is. Reorganization.

So yer sayin they only halfassed failed.

[olevetonahill]

You're clueless. You just don't like me because I'm liberal, and you'll look for any excuse to "pile on," even if you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Im pretty sure XTR is like most of us
WE dont like you not so much cause yer a Lib, Its more of the fact that you are a Pompous,Know it all condescendin prick

[pphilfran]

Im pretty sure XTR is like most of us
WE dont like you not so much cause yer a Lib, Its more of the fact that you are a Pompous,Know it all condescendin prick

lol

[Skysooner]

Where is "here?"

Denver area. Primarily I'm talking about the Wattenberg field just north of Denver. Anadarko is developing the Niobrara formation horizontally there. We have a stake in it but not nearly as big.

[olevetonahill]

lol

Kinda sad when the truth is funny aint it :watermelon:

[olevetonahill]

lol

Kinda sad when the truth is funny aint it :watermelon:

[marfacowboy]

Im pretty sure XTR is like most of us
WE dont like you not so much cause yer a Lib, Its more of the fact that you are a Pompous,Know it all condescendin prick

Perhaps you should just speak for yourself. I can say with a high degree of certainty that most of the condescending behavior (name calling, disparaging remarks, etc.) started with you and your buddies.

[marfacowboy]

Speaking of voting for Romney and "smart people"......

Speaking Saturday at the Values Voters Summit, Rick Santorum said that “smart people” would never side with conservatives.
He's right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5oa55EsmI

[olevetonahill]

Perhaps you should just speak for yourself. I can say with a high degree of certainty that most of the condescending behavior (name calling, disparaging remarks, etc.) started with you and your buddies.

Well excuse me yer Hinneyness

[marfacowboy]

Well excuse me yer Hinneyness

You remind me of Judge Tolliver in Ride The High Country. Get back to something you can handle, like that bottle you're nursing.

[okie52]

That sounds like "water" to me. Where's all this water coming from in arid areas of the west, for example?

Has nothing to do with the question.

[olevetonahill]

Perhaps you should just speak for yourself. I can say with a high degree of certainty that most of the condescending behavior (name calling, disparaging remarks, etc.) started with you and your buddies.

Oh and maybe you should learn the definition of Condescending :satellite:


condescending
Definition
con·de·scend·ing
[ kòndə sénding ]
ADJECTIVE
1.
snobby: behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them



That fits YOU to a Tee :bi_polo:

[olevetonahill]

You remind me of Judge Tolliver in Ride The High Country. Get back to something you can handle, like that bottle you're nursing.

See what I mean? You ARE a
condescending
Definition
con·de·scend·ing
[ kòndə sénding ]
ADJECTIVE
1.
snobby: behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them

[okie52]

ANWR can be developed just fine. My question is where are they going to get the pipeline capacity to get this oil down to the ports. I'm not an Alaskan expert by any means. This is all based on outside readings so no direct personal knowledge. Plus at this point the marginal cost of drilling ANWR is much more than the shale oil we have down here. Marginal cost up there is around $80-$90/bbl vs. $30-$60 in the Permian basin and Oklahoma. Wells up there cost $128-$155 million per well.

With those economics I would think that an oil company would not drill there but the reserves must be dictating otherwise.

[marfacowboy]

Has nothing to do with the question.

It has everything to do with the question. Again, here's a basic disconnect between the right and the left. You apparently believe you can just develop these sources in a vacuum. Like people in Las Vegas believe there's an endless source of water in the desert. Fracking takes water. A lot of water. Just like ethanol needs corn and corn needs a lot of fertilizer which means oil. It's all connected. There's no free lunch.

[marfacowboy]

See what I mean? You ARE a
condescending
Definition
con·de·scend·ing
[ kòndə sénding ]
ADJECTIVE
1.
snobby: behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them

If you're going to throw a punch, expect to get one back. Quit being such a butt hurt *****.

[Skysooner]

With those economics I would think that an oil company would not drill there but the reserves must be dictating otherwise.

It has to be better than I'm stating. My group takes industry reports and public data and does a probabilistic assessment of reserves. The method tends to average the data, so there are certainly "sweet spots" and poorer areas. Once we add all of our reports together, the errors tend to average out. I feel very good about our overall assessment as small reports you see from industry analysts support our report on local levels. It is just that ours is so encompassing.

[okie52]

Speaking of voting for Romney and "smart people"......

Speaking Saturday at the Values Voters Summit, Rick Santorum said that “smart people” would never side with conservatives.
He's right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5oa55EsmI

Heh, heh. Yeah, the dems and stein are the parties of science...just look at the fairy tales they believe in.

[okie52]

It has everything to do with the question. Again, here's a basic disconnect between the right and the left. You apparently believe you can just develop these sources in a vacuum. Like people in Las Vegas believe there's an endless source of water in the desert. Fracking takes water. A lot of water. Just like ethanol needs corn and corn needs a lot of fertilizer which means oil. It's all connected. There's no free lunch.


No, it shows your total lack of understanding about the fracking process regarding porosity vs permeability, which was the question to Sky. As to water and/or fracking fluids, if water is unavailable it will be trucked in or they will drill a well. Most of the frack solution is recaptured and used again.

Now if you want to talk about Steins plan for using Solar...think that uses any water?

[olevetonahill]

If you're going to throw a punch, expect to get one back. Quit being such a butt hurt *****.

Heh, What ever punch you threw was a Clear Miss bro:satellite:
But just for clarity here when I said you were a Pompous,Know it all condescendin prick. The only thing you remotely tried to refute was the condescedin part right ?
Does that mean you Know that you are in fact a Pompous, Know it all Prick and the you only took exception to the condescendin part?

Got ya

[olevetonahill]

It has to be better than I'm stating. My group takes industry reports and public data and does a probabilistic assessment of reserves. The method tends to average the data, so there are certainly "sweet spots" and poorer areas. Once we add all of our reports together, the errors tend to average out. I feel very good about our overall assessment as small reports you see from industry analysts support our report on local levels. It is just that ours is so encompassing.

This is what I LIKE about Sky, while He leans left alot He also comes across as a NORMAL person and explains his views in a Decent manner
Unlike some Pompous ,know it all , condescendin pricks

[okie52]

It has to be better than I'm stating. My group takes industry reports and public data and does a probabilistic assessment of reserves. The method tends to average the data, so there are certainly "sweet spots" and poorer areas. Once we add all of our reports together, the errors tend to average out. I feel very good about our overall assessment as small reports you see from industry analysts support our report on local levels. It is just that ours is so encompassing.

They have been wanting to drill ANWR for quite some time. The repub congress passed a measure in 1996 allowing drilling in ANWR that Clinton vetoed stating "we wouldn't see any of that oil in 10 years". Well that would be a million barrels a day plus on line by now. But they would have been using vertical drilling techniques back then and oil was between $20-30 a barrel. I don't know if they would need horizontal for these wells although they may still choose to use it.

[Skysooner]

They have been wanting to drill ANWR for quite some time. The repub congress passed a measure in 1996 allowing drilling in ANWR that Clinton vetoed stating "we wouldn't see any of that oil in 10 years". Well that would be a million barrels a day plus on line by now. But they would have been using vertical drilling techniques back then and oil was between $20-30 a barrel. I don't know if they would need horizontal for these wells although they may still choose to use it.

I would bet they use slant or horizontal technology. It decreases the number of locations needed, the environmental footprint, facilities to maintain, etc. Yes, but we still have the issue of the pipeline which I think is fully utilized at this point (not completely sure of course). They could build another of course, and they might really need to. At some point when Prudhoe and offsets are done, the gas they have been reinjecting will be blown down and will take up the pipeline. Most likely that is bound for LNG exports to Asia.

[okie52]

I would bet they use slant or horizontal technology. It decreases the number of locations needed, the environmental footprint, facilities to maintain, etc. Yes, but we still have the issue of the pipeline which I think is fully utilized at this point (not completely sure of course). They could build another of course, and they might really need to. At some point when Prudhoe and offsets are done, the gas they have been reinjecting will be blown down and will take up the pipeline. Most likely that is bound for LNG exports to Asia.

I thought that Alaskan production had dropped from over 2,000,000 to about 1,000,000 (not sure). If so, it would seem we would need to be replacing the oil we have lost in the pipeline.

[Skysooner]

I thought that Alaskan production had dropped from over 2,000,000 to about 1,000,000 (not sure). If so, it would seem we would need to be replacing the oil we have lost in the pipeline.

Possible yes. Here is another big problem.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/the-jones-act-is-a-critical-energy-issue/123

The Jones Act is a 1920 era legislation that prevents shipping of products from one US port to another unless it is done on a US flagged vehicle with US personnel. This means that we can't ship crude oil for refining on the east coast unless we use a US flagged ship, and there are none that work the GOM or the east coast. They are all used for Alaskan crude oil shipping to the west coast. The big problem is that we don't have oil infrastructure to ship oil east except by rail. Our refineries on the east coast have to buy oil from overseas that runs $10-20/bbl more than what oil costs at Cushing. This is due to the glut of oil from North Dakota, the Permian Basin and the Mississippian in Oklahoma/Kansas.

[Skysooner]

I thought that Alaskan production had dropped from over 2,000,000 to about 1,000,000 (not sure). If so, it would seem we would need to be replacing the oil we have lost in the pipeline.

It would seem you are right. Production peaked in 1988-89 at 2 million barrels/day. Right now it is 600,000 barrels/day. I haven't heard about ANWR in a long time. It must simply be the cost of development with lower costs supplies available elsewhere makes fighting the government resistance not worth it.

[okie52]

More Jill Stein positions:


Make all corporate tax subsidies transparent:
End the Bush-Obama recession; ask wealthy to pay share:
Incomes rise for wealthiest 1% but their taxes have fallen:
Fees and sales taxes hit lower and middle income hardest:
Close tax loopholes & stop corporate welfare:
Replace “trickle down” with 50% tax cuts on lower incomes:


Stimulus plan was not big enough. (May 2012)
Top 1% are rolling in dough; the rest are in crisis. (Feb 2012)
2011 debt ceiling debacle spurred candidacy. (Jan 2012)
It's un-American that top 1% own 90% of wealth. (Jan 2012)
Our economy is not working for our vast majority. (Jan 2012)
Austerity policies: harsh on YOU but easy for establishment. (Jan 2012)
90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers. (Jan 2012)
End the Bush-Obama recession; ask wealthy to pay share. (Dec 2011)
Reduce spending via military cuts & preventive health. (Dec 2011)


Romney & Obama are both pro-1% big corporation. (Feb 2012)
Corporate elite richer than ever, but pay less tax than ever. (Jan 2012)
Record profits-with politicians' help--caused the recession. (Jan 2012)
Make all corporate tax subsidies transparent. (Jan 2012)
1776 Revolution threw off corporate rule; it's creeping back. (Dec 2011)


Incarcerating poor & minorities has become big business. (Jan 2012)
Death penalty is ineffective, and also barbaric. (Dec 2011)
Mandatory sentencing: ineffective & racially discriminatory. (Dec 2011)

[marfacowboy]

No, it shows your total lack of understanding about the fracking process regarding porosity vs permeability, which was the question to Sky. As to water and/or fracking fluids, if water is unavailable it will be trucked in or they will drill a well. Most of the frack solution is recaptured and used again.

Now if you want to talk about Steins plan for using Solar...think that uses any water?

Trucked in from where? Another ecosystem? About the effects on that ecosystem? We've about drained the Colorado with this sort of mentality.

[marfacowboy]

This is what I LIKE about Sky, while He leans left alot He also comes across as a NORMAL person and explains his views in a Decent manner
Unlike some Pompous ,know it all , condescendin pricks

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .

[okie52]

Possible yes. Here is another big problem.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/the-jones-act-is-a-critical-energy-issue/123

The Jones Act is a 1920 era legislation that prevents shipping of products from one US port to another unless it is done on a US flagged vehicle with US personnel. This means that we can't ship crude oil for refining on the east coast unless we use a US flagged ship, and there are none that work the GOM or the east coast. They are all used for Alaskan crude oil shipping to the west coast. The big problem is that we don't have oil infrastructure to ship oil east except by rail. Our refineries on the east coast have to buy oil from overseas that runs $10-20/bbl more than what oil costs at Cushing. This is due to the glut of oil from North Dakota, the Permian Basin and the Mississippian in Oklahoma/Kansas.

I think that is why we export some oil to Japan from Alaska.

Of course if the east coast would wise up and take advantage of the Marcellus much of the problem could be averted.

[okie52]

Trucked in from where? Another ecosystem? About the effects on that ecosystem? We've about drained the Colorado with this sort of mentality.



Yep, from another eco system but, as I said, most of it is recovered and reused. What effects on the water producing eco system? You think the amount is significant enough to harm it?

But what about Stein's support for solar and it's use of water?

[okie52]

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .


Ouch...that really hurts.

[Skysooner]

Trucked in from where? Another ecosystem? About the effects on that ecosystem? We've about drained the Colorado with this sort of mentality.

Economic realities really dictate this. We can't truck far as the cost is so much. There are the trucking fees, the cost of the water originally, the disposal realities, cost to use the roads, etc. Everything in business is dictated by cost and profit. I don't see it as much of an issue as when the cost of water gets too high in arid areas due to other uses, we can't afford to drill. If we end up getting water from a public water source, we have to pay for it and that money goes into government coffers or into the pockets of landowners in more water-rich areas. This isn't any different than any other business.

[okie52]

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .


Ouch...that really hurts.

[Skysooner]

I think that is why we export some oil to Japan from Alaska.

Of course if the east coast would wise up and take advantage of the Marcellus much of the problem could be averted.

It is mostly New York at this point, and I think that was resolved recently? At this point there are almost 2000 wells sitting in the Marcellus that are drilled and not completed. We are estimating that the Marcellus will grow another 2 BCF/day on top of what it currently produces by the end of the year. Most of the really economic production is in SW Pennsylvania and north West Virginia right now anyway. The NY component is pretty dry gas and isn't economic at this level of price. Most drilling is simply to HBP the acreage.

[okie52]

It is mostly New York at this point, and I think that was resolved recently? At this point there are almost 2000 wells sitting in the Marcellus that are drilled and not completed. We are estimating that the Marcellus will grow another 2 BCF/day on top of what it currently produces by the end of the year. Most of the really economic production is in SW Pennsylvania and north West Virginia right now anyway. The NY component is pretty dry gas and isn't economic at this level of price. Most drilling is simply to HBP the acreage.

Cuomo actually did a study and came out in support of hydraulic fracking. I was talking about getting the NE converted more over to NG than the heating oil a large number of them currently use.

By not completed I assume you mean shutin as we couldn't hold leases by just drilling them (or at least beyond 90 days past the primary term or operations).

[olevetonahill]

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4

[olevetonahill]

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .


Ouch...that really hurts.

Okie, Does his statement Not confirm my assessment of him? :watermelon:

[Skysooner]

Cuomo actually did a study and came out in support of hydraulic fracking. I was talking about getting the NE converted more over to NG than the heating oil a large number of them currently use.

By not completed I assume you mean shutin as we couldn't hold leases by just drilling them (or at least beyond 90 days past the primary term or operations).

No, not completed. Our drilling rigs are outpacing the completion crews by 500 wells/month in the lower 48. I'm not sure what the land situation is there, but you can often get around those through the payment of shut-in payments. I guess it depends on what the lease says. We don't have operations there (unfortunately), so I don't really know how they are able to hold it.

[okie52]

Okie, Does his statement Not confirm my assessment of him? :watermelon:

LOL

Vet-I think you're goading this poor boy into nervous breakdown. :sneakiness: He has enough of a burden to carry trying to justify his political views.

[okie52]

No, not completed. Our drilling rigs are outpacing the completion crews by 500 wells/month in the lower 48. I'm not sure what the land situation is there, but you can often get around those through the payment of shut-in payments. I guess it depends on what the lease says. We don't have operations there (unfortunately), so I don't really know how they are able to hold it.

To be honest I really don't know of any wells that we have drilled that we didn't complete and then shutin...and it would depend on what the lease said as many shutin clauses have now only allowed for a 2 year shutin period. If the wells weren't completed they wouldn't be capable of production but I can honestly say I haven't faced that dilemma.

By not completed in what state are you leaving the well? Have you set pipe? Fracked?

[olevetonahill]

Vet-I think you're goading this poor boy into nervous breakdown. :sneakiness: He has enough of a burden to carry trying to justify his political views.[/QUOTE]

Me???? Never, I actually Love Libs, They taste like "CHICKEN" :watermelon:

[okie52]

Vet-I think you're goading this poor boy into nervous breakdown. :sneakiness: He has enough of a burden to carry trying to justify his political views.

Me???? Never, I actually Love Libs, They taste like "CHICKEN" :watermelon:[/QUOTE]

Heh heh. I'll bet you're missing Icky about now.

[olevetonahill]

Me???? Never, I actually Love Libs, They taste like "CHICKEN" :watermelon:

Heh heh. I'll bet you're missing Icky about now.[/QUOTE]

****in Dean took my Toy away, Now I got to break in anew one

[okie52]

Heh heh. I'll bet you're missing Icky about now.

****in Dean took my Toy away, Now I got to break in anew one[/QUOTE]

Isn't Icky about due to be released from solitary confinement? It seems like it has been 30 days.

[pphilfran]

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .

Dayum

[olevetonahill]

Ima thinkin Dean gave him the Perma, Not sure tho

[olevetonahill]

Dayum

Ima thinkin he never finished his Dale Carnegie corse.

[marfacowboy]

Ima thinkin he never finished his Dale Carnegie corse.

I tried to understand them, have civil discourse. Give them the benefit of the doubt. After thirty or so years, I gave up. I just decided our values and world views were so completely different, it wasn't worth the time to try and understand one another. Too far apart.

[olevetonahill]

I tried to understand them, have civil discourse. Give them the benefit of the doubt. After thirty or so years, I gave up. I just decided our values and world views were so completely different, it wasn't worth the time to try and understand one another. Too far apart.

Kinda like Me in away
I cant understand why Yall prefer shat sammichs with mustard to a Med. Rare Rib eye

[Skysooner]

To be honest I really don't know of any wells that we have drilled that we didn't complete and then shutin...and it would depend on what the lease said as many shutin clauses have now only allowed for a 2 year shutin period. If the wells weren't completed they wouldn't be capable of production but I can honestly say I haven't faced that dilemma.

By not completed in what state are you leaving the well? Have you set pipe? Fracked?

Set pipe and not fracked. It is the completions crews which are the issue. Casing crews are much more on top of things. You don't really want to leave a shale uncased for long.

[jkjsooner]

Yeah, but they spent a lifetime paying in to that "fixed income and/or SS"

People that work and are successful will vote for Romney.

People that fail in life, blame ^them^ and vote for Obama.

So you admit that there's a decent percentage of retirees who paid taxes and SS throughout their lives but are now on a fixed income and SS and are no longer paying federal income taxes?

Funny how this fact is generally ignored when Republicans complain about that lazy 47%.

[olevetonahill]

So you admit that there's a decent percentage of retirees who paid taxes and SS throughout their lives but are now on a fixed income and SS and are no longer paying federal income taxes?

Funny how this fact is generally ignored when Republicans complain about that lazy 47%.


http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_353/1231860371cHW0Xw.jpg

[pphilfran]

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_353/1231860371cHW0Xw.jpg

Good thing there is only one olevetonahill...

[FaninAma]

i don't care than much about the bottom end, the system abusers. i'd rather see another option for people that are willing and do work. the haves keep finding ways to keep the have-nots where they are and making more of them to get more zeros at the end of their net worths

when the rich stop selling out the poor at such a high rate, then maybe less people will need handouts.

The super rich(the haves as you label them) prosper under income disparity and social stratification. It has always been that way in societies. The problem with the have-nots is when they become dependent on government payments and support they put an artificial ceiling on their ability to rise above their current economic status. I know some can"t because of true physical or mental handicaps. But I have spent the last 23 years working in an occupation where I see the effects of choices by people and how these choices affect their children and their children's prospects for a better future. Trust me. Dependency is passed on to future generations of those who are currently dependent. I've seen it professionally and personally(in my own extended family).

IMO, the rich are not doing this to the have-nots. They are doing it to themselves by taking the easy way out in a lot of cases...not all, but a lot. They trade the potential for a better future for the security and not having to put out effort to change their position.

[marfacowboy]

It has to be better than I'm stating. My group takes industry reports and public data and does a probabilistic assessment of reserves. The method tends to average the data, so there are certainly "sweet spots" and poorer areas. Once we add all of our reports together, the errors tend to average out. I feel very good about our overall assessment as small reports you see from industry analysts support our report on local levels. It is just that ours is so encompassing.

I've been following this guy's site (http://climateandenergynews.zparking.net/?p=558) for a few years. Interested in your "industry insider" opinion....

[Skysooner]

I gave it a quick look on my phone on the way home. Let me do some real digging tomorrow on the reserves numbers. The 800 MBOE number seems high to my mind but the others are low. Reserves is not the whole story with shale wells. It is more about present value of the first 3 years of production. Anyway I will give it a closer look either at home or early tomorrow.

[marfacowboy]

I'd like to apologize to anyone that feels I was being condescending or rude. I let my emotions get the best of me, and I was wrong.
I really don't have bad feelings about anyone (even Curly) on this board. We obviously don't agree, but there is no reason for these discussions to devolve into name calling and insults. I apologize for my behavior, and appreciate the opinions offered. I really don't hate conservatives, and I shouldn't have said that.
Let's hope our country can move forward behind whoever has the unfortunate task of leading it in such troubled times. Somehow, someway, we have to do a better job of working together on common ground and building from that point. Our kids and grandkids are depending on us to be adults and do the right thing.
Adios

[olevetonahill]

I'd like to apologize to anyone that feels I was being condescending or rude. I let my emotions get the best of me, and I was wrong.
I really don't have bad feelings about anyone (even Curly) on this board. We obviously don't agree, but there is no reason for these discussions to devolve into name calling and insults. I apologize for my behavior, and appreciate the opinions offered. I really don't hate conservatives, and I shouldn't have said that.
Let's hope our country can move forward behind whoever has the unfortunate task of leading it in such troubled times. Somehow, someway, we have to do a better job of working together on common ground and building from that point. Our kids and grandkids are depending on us to be adults and do the right thing.
Adios

Ya Know, If it was just this ONE time I might buy that load of carp. But You have acted that way since you started posting here . So Ill pass on accepting yer apology

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'd like to apologize to anyone that feels I was being condescending or rude. I let my emotions get the best of me, and I was wrong.
I really don't have bad feelings about anyone (even Curly) on this board. We obviously don't agree, but there is no reason for these discussions to devolve into name calling and insults. I apologize for my behavior, and appreciate the opinions offered. I really don't hate conservatives, and I shouldn't have said that.
Let's hope our country can move forward behind whoever has the unfortunate task of leading it in such troubled times. Somehow, someway, we have to do a better job of working together on common ground and building from that point. Our kids and grandkids are depending on us to be adults and do the right thing.
Adios**** you!

[yermom]

The super rich(the haves as you label them) prosper under income disparity and social stratification. It has always been that way in societies. The problem with the have-nots is when they become dependent on government payments and support they put an artificial ceiling on their ability to rise above their current economic status. I know some can"t because of true physical or mental handicaps. But I have spent the last 23 years working in an occupation where I see the effects of choices by people and how these choices affect their children and their children's prospects for a better future. Trust me. Dependency is passed on to future generations of those who are currently dependent. I've seen it professionally and personally(in my own extended family).

IMO, the rich are not doing this to the have-nots. They are doing it to themselves by taking the easy way out in a lot of cases...not all, but a lot. They trade the potential for a better future for the security and not having to put out effort to change their position.

that's not what i'm talking about at all. i'm talking about people that actually have or want jobs.

[pphilfran]

I'd like to apologize to anyone that feels I was being condescending or rude. I let my emotions get the best of me, and I was wrong.
I really don't have bad feelings about anyone (even Curly) on this board. We obviously don't agree, but there is no reason for these discussions to devolve into name calling and insults. I apologize for my behavior, and appreciate the opinions offered. I really don't hate conservatives, and I shouldn't have said that.
Let's hope our country can move forward behind whoever has the unfortunate task of leading it in such troubled times. Somehow, someway, we have to do a better job of working together on common ground and building from that point. Our kids and grandkids are depending on us to be adults and do the right thing.
Adios

Apology taken...

[sappstuf]

Apology taken...

Taken where?

[sappstuf]

Apology taken...

Double post.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Apology taken...Taken where?

[olevetonahill]

Apology taken, With a grain of salt...

Heh

[diverdog]

The super rich(the haves as you label them) prosper under income disparity and social stratification. It has always been that way in societies. The problem with the have-nots is when they become dependent on government payments and support they put an artificial ceiling on their ability to rise above their current economic status. I know some can"t because of true physical or mental handicaps. But I have spent the last 23 years working in an occupation where I see the effects of choices by people and how these choices affect their children and their children's prospects for a better future. Trust me. Dependency is passed on to future generations of those who are currently dependent. I've seen it professionally and personally(in my own extended family).

IMO, the rich are not doing this to the have-nots. They are doing it to themselves by taking the easy way out in a lot of cases...not all, but a lot. They trade the potential for a better future for the security and not having to put out effort to change their position.

Fanin:

The deal is a lot of folks who are dependent on government are there because companies will externalize their cost. Walmart is a classic example. They do not pay their folks a living wage, nor do they provide benefits and they offer in many cases bad working conditions. Because of this society subsidizes their cost by providing health insurance and food stamps. I am thinking out loud here but I really wonder if we did not provide these benefits if it would actually force Walmart employees to strike and force the company to pay more and provide more benefits.

[okie52]

Fanin:

The deal is a lot of folks who are dependent on government are there because companies will externalize their cost. Walmart is a classic example. They do not pay their folks a living wage, nor do they provide benefits and they offer in many cases bad working conditions. Because of this society subsidizes their cost by providing health insurance and food stamps. I am thinking out loud here but I really wonder if we did not provide these benefits if it would actually force Walmart employees to strike and force the company to pay more and provide more benefits.

Nah, we let employers that hire illegals externalize costs everyday...hell we have a president that fights for their right to do so.

[XingTheRubicon]

I'm not going to pretend I like conservatives. I don't. I don't like your economic plans, I find most to be callous and frankly, delusional. I think you're dangerous. I don't care for your religion or your militarism. I think most of you have deficient educations. In fact, about the only thing I can say about you is most of you do value work. I'll grant you that.
Otherwise, you're ignorant and dangerous, to both humans and non-humans. I have no use for you .





I'd like to apologize to anyone that feels I was being condescending or rude. I let my emotions get the best of me, and I was wrong.
I really don't have bad feelings about anyone (even Curly) on this board. We obviously don't agree, but there is no reason for these discussions to devolve into name calling and insults. I apologize for my behavior, and appreciate the opinions offered. I really don't hate conservatives, and I shouldn't have said that.
Let's hope our country can move forward behind whoever has the unfortunate task of leading it in such troubled times. Somehow, someway, we have to do a better job of working together on common ground and building from that point. Our kids and grandkids are depending on us to be adults and do the right thing.
Adios

http://imageshack.us/a/img534/3002/avatar1891gif.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/avatar1891gif.jpg/)

[diverdog]

Nah, we let employers that hire illegals externalize costs everyday...hell we have a president that fights for their right to do so.

I agree Okie it is an issue.

[Sooner5030]

I might actually vote for Romney now.

The outrage over what he said reminds me how out of touch I am with the average Merican. That reminder made my day....it confirms I am not part of the herd/mob.

[olevetonahill]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Yes, I know this is to his own party's millionaires, but it feels pretty honest for Romney. Much of his base is poor and doesn't pay taxes just like the people he vilifies on here. This doesn't make him look very good.


Sky
Watch the and read the Full version.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/watch-full-secretly-taped-romney-fundraising-video-183730530--election.html

[LiveLaughLove]

Haven't read through all of these pages sorry.

Just a few quick thoughts that may or may not have been said by my conservative brethren and sistren.

What Romney said was accurate except for his percentage number was too high. I think its more like about 20% that are hopelessly dependent on the government, the rest are totally objectionable to Republicans not because of handouts but because of social reasons.

A survey (and I don't have a link and am going to paraphrase but its close and someone can look it up) said the majority of people that go to church regularly tend to vote Republican, those that do not go to church at all tend to vote Democrat, and those that go sporadically tend to be Independent. Not wanting to get in to yet another religion argument and not saying its right or wrong, it just is. No matter what Republicans do policy wise, they won't sway some people simply based on social reasons. The same the other way, no matter what I and most people I know will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Ever. So for social reasons, I will never be a liberal Democrat. It is what it is.

Now back to Romney, he was simply stating the obvious. He isn't going to pour money in to trying to convert people that will never vote for him. I notice Obama isn't running ads in Oklahoma asking Okies to vote for him. Why not? Has he written us off? I would say he has, big time. You put your efforts and money where they are most likely going to pay off, not throwing it out the window.

Obama, in his usual condescending arrogant way, tonight on Letterman lectured Romney about how you have to be president for everybody. BS. The same guy that said we were just bitter clingers to our guns and religion has never done a blasted thing for us. In fact, quite the opposite. He has helped his constituents immensely. Solyndra, anyone? Dropping the charges on the New Black Panthers, can I get an amen? Cars for Clunkers, remember?

Indeed, he talks the talk but he doesn't come close to walking the walk. Animal Mother would tear him up.

Romney overstated the number. He did not overstate the problem. He spoke the truth and he should not back down. Let him stand his ground, and let Obama stand his over his redistribution comments. Let's see where America is. I truly want to know if we have lost our way or not. If we have we deserve what we get. I don't think we have though. I think most Americans still believe this is the greatest country on Earth and that capitalism is still the most vibrant way for the poor to raise themselves up. We'll see.

[diverdog]

Sideshow Bob: Your guilty consciences may force you to vote Democratic, but secretly you yearn for a cold-hearted Republican who’ll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! You need me, Springfield!

Side show Bob? Thanks Selma.

[diverdog]

Haven't read through all of these pages sorry.

Just a few quick thoughts that may or may not have been said by my conservative brethren and sistren.

What Romney said was accurate except for his percentage number was too high. I think its more like about 20% that are hopelessly dependent on the government, the rest are totally objectionable to Republicans not because of handouts but because of social reasons.

A survey (and I don't have a link and am going to paraphrase but its close and someone can look it up) said the majority of people that go to church regularly tend to vote Republican, those that do not go to church at all tend to vote Democrat, and those that go sporadically tend to be Independent. Not wanting to get in to yet another religion argument and not saying its right or wrong, it just is. No matter what Republicans do policy wise, they won't sway some people simply based on social reasons. The same the other way, no matter what I and most people I know will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Ever. So for social reasons, I will never be a liberal Democrat. It is what it is.

Now back to Romney, he was simply stating the obvious. He isn't going to pour money in to trying to convert people that will never vote for him. I notice Obama isn't running ads in Oklahoma asking Okies to vote for him. Why not? Has he written us off? I would say he has, big time. You put your efforts and money where they are most likely going to pay off, not throwing it out the window.

Obama, in his usual condescending arrogant way, tonight on Letterman lectured Romney about how you have to be president for everybody. BS. The same guy that said we were just bitter clingers to our guns and religion has never done a blasted thing for us. In fact, quite the opposite. He has helped his constituents immensely. Solyndra, anyone? Dropping the charges on the New Black Panthers, can I get an amen? Cars for Clunkers, remember?

Indeed, he talks the talk but he doesn't come close to walking the walk. Animal Mother would tear him up.

Romney overstated the number. He did not overstate the problem. He spoke the truth and he should not back down. Let him stand his ground, and let Obama stand his over his redistribution comments. Let's see where America is. I truly want to know if we have lost our way or not. If we have we deserve what we get. I don't think we have though. I think most Americans still believe this is the greatest country on Earth and that capitalism is still the most vibrant way for the poor to raise themselves up. We'll see.

LLL:


I would be curious to see the numbers on church and political affiliation. It is an interesting thought.

[Skysooner]

LLL:


I would be curious to see the numbers on church and political affiliation. It is an interesting thought.

http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits

Evangelical and Mormon were heavy Republican leans. Mainline churches were split. Catholics were more heavily Democrat. I'm sure in terms of total numbers he is probably right, but it certainly depends on denomination with many church-goers being Democrat.

[Skysooner]

Haven't read through all of these pages sorry.

Just a few quick thoughts that may or may not have been said by my conservative brethren and sistren.

What Romney said was accurate except for his percentage number was too high. I think its more like about 20% that are hopelessly dependent on the government, the rest are totally objectionable to Republicans not because of handouts but because of social reasons.

A survey (and I don't have a link and am going to paraphrase but its close and someone can look it up) said the majority of people that go to church regularly tend to vote Republican, those that do not go to church at all tend to vote Democrat, and those that go sporadically tend to be Independent. Not wanting to get in to yet another religion argument and not saying its right or wrong, it just is. No matter what Republicans do policy wise, they won't sway some people simply based on social reasons. The same the other way, no matter what I and most people I know will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Ever. So for social reasons, I will never be a liberal Democrat. It is what it is.

Now back to Romney, he was simply stating the obvious. He isn't going to pour money in to trying to convert people that will never vote for him. I notice Obama isn't running ads in Oklahoma asking Okies to vote for him. Why not? Has he written us off? I would say he has, big time. You put your efforts and money where they are most likely going to pay off, not throwing it out the window.

Obama, in his usual condescending arrogant way, tonight on Letterman lectured Romney about how you have to be president for everybody. BS. The same guy that said we were just bitter clingers to our guns and religion has never done a blasted thing for us. In fact, quite the opposite. He has helped his constituents immensely. Solyndra, anyone? Dropping the charges on the New Black Panthers, can I get an amen? Cars for Clunkers, remember?

Indeed, he talks the talk but he doesn't come close to walking the walk. Animal Mother would tear him up.

Romney overstated the number. He did not overstate the problem. He spoke the truth and he should not back down. Let him stand his ground, and let Obama stand his over his redistribution comments. Let's see where America is. I truly want to know if we have lost our way or not. If we have we deserve what we get. I don't think we have though. I think most Americans still believe this is the greatest country on Earth and that capitalism is still the most vibrant way for the poor to raise themselves up. We'll see.


I think Romney was stating the obvious as he saw it. I don't believe this to be a misstatement. He views the world that way. It doesn't make him a bad person. He is a product of the way he was raised and his now priviliged lifestyle. I was wondering about yoru statement "the rest are totally objectionable to Republicans". Do you mean that they don't like the Republicans or the Republicans don't like them? I think you mean the former, but it read as the latter.

[Skysooner]

Sky
Watch the and read the Full version.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/watch-full-secretly-taped-romney-fundraising-video-183730530--election.html

I watched half of it last night and the rest this morning. He comes across as more likeable just in his demeanor. I don't think he is in his element talking to the media or in front of large crowds. He is much more eloquent here. He still misspoke in the 47% and government dependent thing. I think he probably actually believes this as most things candidates say are scripted. He is doing a bunch of these, and the same questions come up. I actually liked much of what he had to say except for the part about the military being cut. Where does he think we can balance the budget from? This is the largest non-entitlement spending we have. I wish the 'pols would finally get it and do what needs to be done and reform entitlements, make common sense tax increases (if any are even needed) and reduce the military to the point where we can protect ourselves, maybe project some power but doesn't allow them to make the decision to invade another country easily.

[rock on sooner]

Her are some stats to chew on...source is the AP and Tax Policy Center

38M owe no federal tax because income is too low...use standard deductions, etc
17M owe no federal tax because of breaks to the elderly
12M avoid tax because of earned income tax credits
2M take advantage of education tax breaks

93% of those who owe no taxes earn $50K or less/yr
5% earn $50K-$100K. The rest..about 430000 households
earn more than $100K/yr, which includes 4000 households
earning more that one million $$/yr.

I mentioned in an earlier post about a demographic that Romney
does well in..the elderly 52% to 42% Romney over Obama.

I think the only thing Romney got right in his unguarded moment
was the overall % of nearly 47%. He dissed a lot of folks that
were his supporters, not so much now.

[MamaMia]

The healthy people in the United States who get free stuff for sitting on their lazy asses will vote democrat.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Now we find out that the craptacular mag Mother Jones and doosh Carter have falsified the video and don't have a complete video to release. 2 plus minutes missing at the critical 47% section. Lame Street Dem hack media fail!!!! At least we have a complete account of The Socialist's redistribution statement.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The healthy people in the United States who get free stuff for sitting on their lazy asses will vote democrat.

New data shows welfare roles have exploded after the healthy work requirement was dropped by The Socialist.

[LiveLaughLove]

I think Romney was stating the obvious as he saw it. I don't believe this to be a misstatement. He views the world that way. It doesn't make him a bad person. He is a product of the way he was raised and his now priviliged lifestyle. I was wondering about yoru statement "the rest are totally objectionable to Republicans". Do you mean that they don't like the Republicans or the Republicans don't like them? I think you mean the former, but it read as the latter.

The rest totally object to republicans because of social issues. they will never vote for Romney.

[Skysooner]

I've been following this guy's site (http://climateandenergynews.zparking.net/?p=558) for a few years. Interested in your "industry insider" opinion....

He is actually quite accurate for a non-professional in the industry. The Eagle Ford oil window average looks to be around 550 MBOE. Of course what companies report are the best wells, and the best wells are certainly going to do 800 MBOE. Every company touts its best. Still the mean well in the oil and condensate windows are among the best plays in North America. He also misstates that early life EUR estimates are radically wrong. There are ways to get early-life EUR estimates that are quite accurate with shale wells due to the low permeability. We can make certain simplifications to the Arps decline curve equation (the rate-time equation that defines production) that allow us to arrange data in a way that it gives us a great forecast (at least for the first 8 years when the vast majority of the discounted profitability is found).

He is also fairly accurate in the Bakken although what he is ignoring is that rigs are moving around primarily to drill wells to hold acreage. The play is larger than he thinks, and he doesn't handle the layering in effects of declining wells to the base production level. Still though I like him better than Arthur Berman who is an industry professional, thinks all companies overstate shale well recoveries but is completely intellectually dishonest about it. This guy is trying to do the best that he can with public data but isn't quite tuned into the limits of that data. For instance, he talks about a drop in 2012 production in the Bakken in one sheet but says that it might be a production problem. It is actually a problem with lag time on the state regulatory agency reporting the production out. Not every company turns in their production monthly on the same time schedule even though they are required to by law. I usually don't trust production data until we are 5-6 months past the date of turn-in.

Anyway that is my two cents.

[Skysooner]

The rest totally object to republicans because of social issues. they will never vote for Romney.


That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the clarification.

[LiveLaughLove]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm


This is an old story and not the more recent survey I mentioned, but its quite illustrative of the gap and how people actually vote. Policy means very little, even though people say they do. They actually vote social issues.

That's why a republican can win in new York city, but only if he is socially very liberal. Scott brown has to be as liberal as a Kennedy socially to stand a chance in Massachusetts.

[okie52]

He is actually quite accurate for a non-professional in the industry. The Eagle Ford oil window average looks to be around 550 MBOE. Of course what companies report are the best wells, and the best wells are certainly going to do 800 MBOE. Every company touts its best. Still the mean well in the oil and condensate windows are among the best plays in North America. He also misstates that early life EUR estimates are radically wrong. There are ways to get early-life EUR estimates that are quite accurate with shale wells due to the low permeability. We can make certain simplifications to the Arps decline curve equation (the rate-time equation that defines production) that allow us to arrange data in a way that it gives us a great forecast (at least for the first 8 years when the vast majority of the discounted profitability is found).

He is also fairly accurate in the Bakken although what he is ignoring is that rigs are moving around primarily to drill wells to hold acreage. The play is larger than he thinks, and he doesn't handle the layering in effects of declining wells to the base production level. Still though I like him better than Arthur Berman who is an industry professional, thinks all companies overstate shale well recoveries but is completely intellectually dishonest about it. This guy is trying to do the best that he can with public data but isn't quite tuned into the limits of that data. For instance, he talks about a drop in 2012 production in the Bakken in one sheet but says that it might be a production problem. It is actually a problem with lag time on the state regulatory agency reporting the production out. Not every company turns in their production monthly on the same time schedule even though they are required to by law. I usually don't trust production data until we are 5-6 months past the date of turn-in.

Anyway that is my two cents.

Although I realize most production from shales is relatively new, as production declines on the shales is it economic to re-enter these wells, run your laterals in different directions and depths, refrac them to stimulate production? How much of the oil and/or gas (percentage wise) is usually being recovered from the shales as a general rule (I realize they are all different)?

[Skysooner]

Although I realize most production from shales is relatively new, as production declines on the shales is it economic to re-enter these wells, run your laterals in different directions and depths, refrac them to stimulate production? How much of the oil and/or gas (percentage wise) is usually being recovered from the shales as a general rule (I realize they are all different)?

Gas is 10-40% in the stimulated rock volume which is generally the area of the well now that we have downspaced to 150-200' frac intervals in the horizontal. Oil is going to be 1-10% depending upon permeability. We have already been refracing vertical shale wells and achieving new reserves. This is primarily due to what some call stress shadowing or what I call stress reorientation (pretty much the same thing). The reservoir gets depleted near the fracs but is high pressure in the other parts of the shales since mobility is so low. What this does when fracing occurs is to reorient the frac in the area of the depletion and then the frac turns as it reacts to the regional stress field.

[okie52]

Gas is 10-40% in the stimulated rock volume which is generally the area of the well now that we have downspaced to 150-200' frac intervals in the horizontal. Oil is going to be 1-10% depending upon permeability. We have already been refracing vertical shale wells and achieving new reserves. This is primarily due to what some call stress shadowing or what I call stress reorientation (pretty much the same thing). The reservoir gets depleted near the fracs but is high pressure in the other parts of the shales since mobility is so low. What this does when fracing occurs is to reorient the frac in the area of the depletion and then the frac turns as it reacts to the regional stress field.

Why do you not re-enter the vertical wells horizontally and then frack? It would seem that if these wells were good enough to produce commercially vertically then they would have better communication than most current shale wells do now. Am I missing something?

[Skysooner]

Why do you not re-enter the vertical wells horizontally and then frack? It would seem that if these wells were good enough to produce commercially vertically then they would have better communication than most current shale wells do now. Am I missing something?

Simple casing design issues. Most of the vertical wells were set with 4.5% production casing. You would have to pull that casing and then redrill it from above. Depending upon where the top of cement is it may just be cheaper to drill a whole new well. There are cases where you can do this certainly, but you need at least 4.5% casing out to the end of the horizontal and space to cement for isolation and then appropriate frac rate. Most of these shale wells are abnormally pressured so frac gradient can be north of 0.9 psi/ft.

[Skysooner]

Oh the other thing that came out of watching that video was Romney saying middle class was an income of $200,000-$250,000 per year. He later clarified that to household income of $200,000-$250,000. I can definitely say that middle class for me was when the 2 of us were making around $50,000-$75,000 combined. We had a nice home and could afford to pay for child care. Money was always tight, but we managed. $200,000 plus per year combined household with 2 kids is rich by anyone's standards.

[MamaMia]

New data shows welfare roles have exploded after the healthy work requirement was dropped by The Socialist.Most people on welfare vote democrat.

[okie52]

Simple casing design issues. Most of the vertical wells were set with 4.5% production casing. You would have to pull that casing and then redrill it from above. Depending upon where the top of cement is it may just be cheaper to drill a whole new well. There are cases where you can do this certainly, but you need at least 4.5% casing out to the end of the horizontal and space to cement for isolation and then appropriate frac rate. Most of these shale wells are abnormally pressured so frac gradient can be north of 0.9 psi/ft.

A lot of the horizontals have circuitous laterals...are you running casing to the ends of those laterals?

[Skysooner]

A lot of the horizontals have circuitous laterals...are you running casing to the ends of those laterals?

Most of the completions are cased. There are some in areas like the Bakken that are run open=hole with a liner and external packers (what we call a Packers Plus completion).

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Oh the other thing that came out of watching that video was Romney saying middle class was an income of $200,000-$250,000 per year. He later clarified that to household income of $200,000-$250,000. I can definitely say that middle class for me was when the 2 of us were making around $50,000-$75,000 combined. We had a nice home and could afford to pay for child care. Money was always tight, but we managed. $200,000 plus per year combined household with 2 kids is rich by anyone's standards.

The Socialist says middle income is up to $250k as well. Thats his start for the tax increase. We all know it will eventually include every income by the time he is done with a second term, heaven forbid.

[rock on sooner]

Oh the other thing that came out of watching that video was Romney saying middle class was an income of $200,000-$250,000 per year. He later clarified that to household income of $200,000-$250,000. I can definitely say that middle class for me was when the 2 of us were making around $50,000-$75,000 combined. We had a nice home and could afford to pay for child care. Money was always tight, but we managed. $200,000 plus per year combined household with 2 kids is rich by anyone's standards.

That pretty much sums it up. I think most people feel that way. $200K+
was the first step toward becoming independently wealthy. I don't care if
both the prez and Romney say that is middle class, if it is then it is upper,
upper middle at least....

[Skysooner]

The Socialist says middle income is up to $250k as well. Thats his start for the tax increase. We all know it will eventually include every income by the time he is done with a second term, heaven forbid.

You miss the point entirely. Romney has no conception of how it is to live with a median income (around $50,000-$60,000) anymore. How can he relate to people? I also guess that is what I expect from someone who has no idea what socialism is.

[cleller]

You miss the point entirely. Romney has no conception of how it is to live with a median income (around $50,000-$60,000) anymore. How can he relate to people? I also guess that is what I expect from someone who has no idea what socialism is.

That really doesn't matter to me at all. I think Romney has a better idea of how an organization that manages its money poorly can end up on the scrapheap, that's more important to me.

[okie52]

You miss the point entirely. Romney has no conception of how it is to live with a median income (around $50,000-$60,000) anymore. How can he relate to people? I also guess that is what I expect from someone who has no idea what socialism is.

How did JFK relate?

[Skysooner]

How did JFK relate?

That's a very good question. I'm not sure he did with what he was able to get away with.

I'm not actually saying Romney is a bad guy here. My theory on being President is that it is a completely thankless job, and you have to have an overinflated sense of service, narcissism or something else to even want to attempt it. It is a quick way to riches after you leave office, but it comes with an almost total lack of privacy. I see Romney as a guy who related to his dad and wants to give back. He might even be a very good President given some of the things he has done, and we have some very hard decisions ahead. Remember that we generally only see the public faces of these guys. Some are bad guys behind the scenes. My impression of both Obama and Romney is that they are both pretty good guys behind it all. I don't think Obama is a socialist or that Romney is a right winger. I think they are both very similar in the way they would approach things even given their rhetoric. Romney has to be appear to be conservative to get elected. Obama has to appear to be more liberal for the same reasons. The biggest difference here is that Obama hasn't particularly done a great job. There are many reasons for this, but he didn't take advantage of his congressional advantage while he had the chance. Romney will have an equally steep learning curve, and we are just kind of hoping that he would be a good President when he was just an okay governor. Big decisions ahead.

[MamaMia]

You miss the point entirely. Romney has no conception of how it is to live with a median income (around $50,000-$60,000) anymore. How can he relate to people? I also guess that is what I expect from someone who has no idea what socialism is.

Why would he not have a conception? You don't need to be poor to be able to relate or crunch the numbers so you will know what needs to be done. A male gynecologist doesn't have to have a uterus to be able to deliver a baby. A pet groomer doesn't have to have a tail to be able to trim one.

[Skysooner]

Why would he not have a conception? You don't need to be poor to be able to relate or crunch the numbers so you will know what needs to be done. A male gynecologist doesn't have to have a uterus to be able to deliver a baby. A pet groomer doesn't have to have a tail to be able to trim one.


Read my statement above this last one. I don't know that it does totally, but it is going to make it hard for people to relate to him. That makes it pretty hard to get elected. I guess the biggest issue are statements like he made don't make it look like he will do what is best for the majority of citizens if he doesn't think of them as hard-working. I'm not talking about welfare cheats, lazy people etc. I'm talking about the vast majority of people in this country who work hard, make money for their families and want this country to continue to work for them.

[yermom]

How did JFK relate?

did he talk about how lazy people should get jobs and confuse "middle class" with really well off?

[FaninAma]

You miss the point entirely. Romney has no conception of how it is to live with a median income (around $50,000-$60,000) anymore. How can he relate to people? I also guess that is what I expect from someone who has no idea what socialism is.

Neither can Obama. His income has been in the top 1% now for at least 7 years. Also, Obama has never earned a living from the private sector to any significant extent. His income has been largely earned from tax supported entities.

[pphilfran]

Neither relates...both are so insulated from the real world they have no clue....as an example, on haircut day Obama pays to have his barber fly in from Chicago....

[Midtowner]

Neither relates...both are so insulated from the real world they have no clue....as an example, on haircut day Obama pays to have his barber fly in from Chicago....

I'm pretty sure that in his lifetime, Obama has bought his own groceries.

--I'm not so sure of Romney.

[Skysooner]

Neither relates...both are so insulated from the real world they have no clue....as an example, on haircut day Obama pays to have his barber fly in from Chicago....

I'm pretty sure that in his lifetime, Obama has bought his own groceries.

--I'm not so sure of Romney.
That's my point. I am well off now, but I still buy my own groceries. I grew up in a very small house until I was 14 or so and then my dad's career took off. Obama didn't grow up wealthy. That is a huge difference.

[pphilfran]

I'm pretty sure that in his lifetime, Obama has bought his own groceries.

--I'm not so sure of Romney.

He has nothing in common with the working class...neither have...

[pphilfran]

Keep in mind that if Rom were prez and he was running against Betty Boop...I would vote for Betty...

[marfacowboy]

He has nothing in common with the working class...neither have...

I'm not sure anyone in the Wall Street-Washington hierarchy has anything in common with the working class. Politics are controlled by big money and power brokers. The average guy or gal has nary a chance.

[FaninAma]

I'm pretty sure that in his lifetime, Obama has bought his own groceries.

--I'm not so sure of Romney.

One candidate earned his living in the dog-eat-dog arena of the venture capital sector.....the embodiment of the free market system where risk is tken and sometimes rewarded by private investors.. The other was supported largely by the safety net of taxpayers. No wonder there is a philiosophical approach to gevernment.

The choices in this election are clear and just became clearer with the secret video. We are finally going to have a serious discussion about the role of government in this country in terms of whether it is to be the great equalizer of what the government determines is fair and unfair or whether it there just to insure there is the opportunity to succeed if one wishes to take advantage of the opportunities available.

[TitoMorelli]

So, serial sexual predator? No problemo.

GW nutcase who tried to force legitimate massage therapists to rub his wanker? Who gives a s__t?

Pal's around with domestic terrorists and convicted felons? Phhhhht.


Guy's worth millions? How dare that evil out-of-touch SOB run for POTUS !!!

[pphilfran]

One candidate earned his living in the dog-eat-dog arena of the venture capital arena.....the embodiment of the free market system where risk is tken and sometimes rewarded by private investors.. The other was supported largely by the safety net of taxpayers. No wonder there is a philiosophical approach to gevernment.

The choices in this election are clear and just became clearer with the secret video. We are finally going to have a serious discussion about the role of government in this country in terms of whether it is to be the great equalizer of what the government determines is fair and unfair or whether it there just to insure there is the opportunity to succeed if one wishes to take advantage of the opportunities available.

The choice is anything but clear...
'
We have one candidate that has no problem with escalating energy costs...flooding the job market with low cost labor that hurts citizens with low skills...failed to achieve his economic goals...and wants to raise taxes in an economy that is on fumes...but is a terrific speaker and seems more personable...

The other candidate wants to pander to the rich...had enough money his entire life that even if his ventures failed he would still be rich...hasn't really stated his economic plan in full...discusses eliminating tax loopholes but hasn't clarified which loopholes...and says a bunch of stupid chit, as if his mouth is faster than his brain...not nearly the speaker and seems aloft...

[marfacowboy]

The choice is anything but clear...
'
We have one candidate that has no problem with escalating energy costs...flooding the job market with low cost labor that hurts citizens with low skills...failed to achieve his economic goals...and wants to raise taxes in an economy that is on fumes...but is a terrific speaker and seems more personable...

The other candidate wants to pander to the rich...had enough money his entire life that even if his ventures failed he would still be rich...hasn't really stated his economic plan in full...discusses eliminating tax loopholes but hasn't clarified which loopholes...and says a bunch of stupid chit, as if his mouth is faster than his brain...not nearly the speaker and seems aloft...

So, what's to be done? I frankly don't think it's possible for anyone that tells the plain truth, doesn't play games, isn't beholden to special interest groups to gain the Office. I think we're too far gone.

[pphilfran]

So, what's to be done? I frankly don't think it's possible for anyone that tells the plain truth, doesn't play games, isn't beholden to special interest groups to gain the Office. I think we're too far gone.

Sooner or later the chickens are going to come to roost...too many people do not realize that there are going to be many things happening over the next 10 years that they are not going to like...but it is inevitable...

SS/Medicare are going to see age limit increases...and they are going to see the cap or rate raised...

Spending is going to be cut...in far more areas than just the military...

Income tax rates are going to go up across the board..when depends on when/if we get the economy up and running...

I think the odds are better that we will see riots in the streets before we see people believing what needs to be done...a small group of people have already run up the flag...but they are simply ignored...IOUSA has been out since 2008 and has gone nowhere..and it wasn't put together by an unknown group...

David Walker
Warren Buffet
Alan Greenspan
Paul O'Neil
Robert Rubin
Ron Paul



Here is the short version...30 minutes...full version here... http://www.iousathemovie.com/

O_TjBNjc9Bo

[Midtowner]

One candidate earned his living in the dog-eat-dog arena of the venture capital arena.....the embodiment of the free market system where risk is tken and sometimes rewarded by private investors.. The other was supported largely by the safety net of taxpayers. No wonder there is a philiosophical approach to gevernment.

Right.. do we want someone who is going to use government to only benefit himself like a venture capitalist and screw everyone else? Or do we want someone who believes in a government to serve all of the people? You're right. That's an easy choice.


The choices in this election are clear and just became clearer with the secret video. We are finally going to have a serious discussion about the role of government in this country in terms of whether it is to be the great equalizer of what the government determines is fair and unfair or whether it there just to insure there is the opportunity to succeed if one wishes to take advantage of the opportunities available.

Romney is the quintessential individual who was born on third base thinking he hit a triple. This Randian fantasyland he appears to live in is an illusion. He did not get to be a bazillionaire because he's just so frickin' awesome and no one else is. He inherited a large sum of money and with the best education money could buy, he turned that tidy sum into a tidier sum. Impressive, but he ain't no Hank Reardon.

Obama, on the other hand, was a brilliant student who performed exceptionally in school. Instead of doing something like venture capital, he went into something which, at the time, looked like it could be a dead end job where he'd end up a glorified rabble rouser. He just kept on being exceptional and ended up as President of the United States. If you don't think he seized every opportunity to succeed, I'm wondering which you think he left on the table?

[pphilfran]

Right.. do we want someone who is going to use government to only benefit himself like a venture capitalist and screw everyone else? Or do we want someone who believes in a government to serve all of the people? You're right. That's an easy choice.



Romney is the quintessential individual who was born on third base thinking he hit a triple. This Randian fantasyland he appears to live in is an illusion. He did not get to be a bazillionaire because he's just so frickin' awesome and no one else is. He inherited a large sum of money and with the best education money could buy, he turned that tidy sum into a tidier sum. Impressive, but he ain't no Dagny Taggart. Obama, on the other hand, was a brilliant student who performed exceptionally in school. Instead of doing something like venture capital, he went into something which, at the time, looked like it could be a dead end job where he'd end up a glorified rabble rouser. He just kept on being exceptional and ended up as President of the United States. If you don't think he seized every opportunity to succeed, I'm wondering which you think he left on the table?

Do you actually think Obama has a plan to get the economy up and running at 4% growth...does he have a true plan to reduce the trillion dollar deficits?

[Midtowner]

Do you actually think Obama has a plan to get the economy up and running at 4% growth...does he have a true plan to reduce the trillion dollar deficits?

Nope.

Neither does Romney. You of all people should know the jobs that left us are not coming back ever.

As far as reducing the deficit, as long as we're not under single party rule, we'll have the tax pledge tards who won't move off of not raising taxes on one side. On the other, we'll have the Dems who are unwilling to frontload entitlement cuts. We're at an impasse until one of the sides sees reason or until we are under single party rule.

Until such time, I'd rather not have a President who believes that we can grow our economy by allowing polluters to wreck the environment, raising taxes on middle class folks while cutting taxes for the wealthy and undoing whatever healthcare progress we've made before we can see whether it works or what needs to be tweaked.

Romney has also said some things which should probably never be said out loud by a U.S. President, though probably true, he said that there's no realistic peace between Israel and Palestine. Such a statement would have dire ramifications in our dealings with the ME.

I also really don't think Romney understands anything about the middle class or cares to understand. I really liked him as a governor, he used to be a good guy. Don't know what happened though. He sounds like an *** nowadays.

I suppose Obama is going to bring us a steady/slow improvement in employment and as far as growth, the President isn't going to have much to say about that unless we get someone who is willing to start clamping down on the unfair (if you can call it that) trade practices of foreign manufacturers.

[pphilfran]

There is little doubt in my mind that you know how I feel...I have little confidence in either...

i agree with most of what you say...and double gold stars on the trade practices statement...

[FaninAma]

Right.. do we want someone who is going to use government to only benefit himself like a venture capitalist and screw everyone else? Or do we want someone who believes in a government to serve all of the people? You're right. That's an easy choice.



Romney is the quintessential individual who was born on third base thinking he hit a triple. This Randian fantasyland he appears to live in is an illusion. He did not get to be a bazillionaire because he's just so frickin' awesome and no one else is. He inherited a large sum of money and with the best education money could buy, he turned that tidy sum into a tidier sum. Impressive, but he ain't no Hank Reardon.

Obama, on the other hand, was a brilliant student who performed exceptionally in school. Instead of doing something like venture capital, he went into something which, at the time, looked like it could be a dead end job where he'd end up a glorified rabble rouser. He just kept on being exceptional and ended up as President of the United States. If you don't think he seized every opportunity to succeed, I'm wondering which you think he left on the table?

Midtowner, venture capitalists do not try to screw everybody else. They take failing companies and try to get them back on their feet thus saving a lot of jobs in the process. Another function of venture capital is to fund a new business with a great idea which, if successful, also provides for a lot of jobs. There is a lot of risk but also a lot of reward if they succeed. You need to do a little research on the subject.

And as far as the notion of being born on 3rd base being a legitimate criticism of Romney all I can say is it is trite and lazy. I am working very hard to to be successful but the most important reason i want to be successful is so my kids have a better chance of being successful and can go on to accomplish even more success than I. That is one of the founding principles of this country and what drew millions of immigrants here....a chance to provide a better future for themselves and their kids.

Romney's father worked very hard and was successful and as a result his kids had a leg up on being successful themselves. Holding that against somebody is the epitomy of class envy and symptomatic of the class warfare mentality that is crippling this country. Success is something to be admired, not something to be dinigrated and criticized.

[pphilfran]

If anybody hasn't watched the entire IOUSA doc you should take the time...it is exceptionally well done...keep in mind the disturbing numbers they discuss look great compared to today...

[Midtowner]

Midtowner, venture capitalists do not try to screw everybody else. They take failing companies and try to get them back on their feet thus saving a lot of jobs in the process. Another function of venture capital is to fund a new business with a great idea. There is a lot of risk but also a lot of reward if they succeed. You need to do a littloe research on the subject.

Not always. Venture capital firms buy companies which are undervalued for whatever reason. They can acquire them a number of ways, most ways involve screwing someone. Often, these firms buy companies only to sell off the most valuable assets, leaving lots of folks out of work. It's creative destruction and if you look at a lot of the deals someone like Boone Pickens did, they were very much taking everything for himself and screwing everyone else to the maximum extent possible. That's what capitalism is though.


And as far as the notion of being born on 3rd being a legitimate criticism of Romney all I can say is it is trite and lazy. I am working very hard to to be successful but the most important reason i want to be successful is so my kids have a better chance of being successful and can go on to accomplish even more success than I. That is one of the founding principles of this country and what drew millions of immigrants here....a chance to provide a better future for themselves and their kids.

Romney's father worked very hard and was successful and as a result his kids had a leg up on being successful themselves. Holding that against somebody is the epitomy of envy class envy and symptomatic of the class warfare mentality that is crippling this country. Success is something to be admired, not something to be dinigrated and critiziced.

It's a very legitimate issue. He has no connection whatsoever to the middle class. It's not class envy. As far as class warfare, taking Romney's own remarks, he very much has a class warfare mentality and his side's winning. He strikes me very much as that iron mining heiress in Australia who said she was probably going to shut down her Aussie operations because African iron miners would work for $2.00/day and didn't need all of that safety mumbo jumbo and also that if you stop smoking and drinking, you too can be a billionaire.