Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Obama Rejects 20k Jobs, aka Keystone Pipeline

From an updated version of my recent McClatchy-Tribune editorial, to reflect the Obama administration's pending rejection of 20,000 new jobs for Americans, aka as the Keystone XL pipeline:

Kicking the can down the road 20,000 Americans while they're down and unemployed, as President Barack Obama did in delaying a decision on rejecting the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, certainly pleased the green lobby. But it did absolutely nothing for jobs creation. Nor did blocking access to new federal offshore areas for oil and natural gas drilling produce any jobs.

At a time when more than 13 million Americans are unemployed, you'd think that the president would be doing everything possible to stimulate employment. But his jobs-creation policy lacks direction and focus.

Putting off a decision on Rejecting the Keystone pipeline and stalling offshore drilling was grossly counterproductive, compromising our commitment to North American oil production and potentially threatening our energy security. These and other regressive actions don't augur well for domestic energy development or job creation.

Despite great handwringing over America's anemic job creation, the president demonstrates little understanding of the damage his policies are doing to millions of unemployed Americans desperate to find work. Unfortunately, pleasing the environmental lobby seems much more important to him now than jobs.


87 Comments:

At 1/18/2012 1:02 PM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

The XL pipeline does not have the necessary features for an Obama Approval. The XL needs re-marketed with the following provisions to win approval:

(1) opportunity for the DOE to award large loans predicated on bankruptcy based business models,

(2) the construction and subsequent use of the pipeline needs to be more crony capitalism friendly,

(3) Canada, albeit the 57th state, has not voted correctly since 1933, hence safeguards are not in place for politically correct voting,

(4) Chicago politics is not directly benefiting and hence this needs rectified,

(5) XL pipeline is not listed as a “friend” on the White House face book page.

Once these items are corrected, a six year, six hundred million study will be required. From that point it’s a 50/50 proposition regarding approval.

 
At 1/18/2012 1:16 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

The Lord Obama giveth and the Lord Obama taketh away.

Who are we peasants to question the decisions of betters in guvment?

 
At 1/18/2012 1:36 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Seems like a poor decision by Obama.

Not as bad as getting into Afghanistan, or Iraq, or even our ethanol anti-energy program, but still a poor decision.

 
At 1/18/2012 1:52 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Is it as poor as going into Libya, Benji?

 
At 1/18/2012 2:04 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji always feels compelled to do as much damage control for his boyfriend as possible.

 
At 1/18/2012 2:06 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Despite great handwringing over America's anemic job creation, the president demonstrates little understanding of the damage his policies are doing to millions of unemployed Americans desperate to find work."

Meanwhile, his defenders like Larry will say "production is up, so what's the problem?"

 
At 1/18/2012 2:20 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

At least this will keep gasoline prices a little lower, for a little longer, in the midwest.

 
At 1/18/2012 3:00 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Good one healey!

Hilarious!

 
At 1/18/2012 3:11 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Speaking of jobs, again the Obama administration BS press release on jobs comes undone by the facts...


From Zer0Hedge: Jobless Claims vs Jobs: Charting The Relationship

Tomorrow the BLS will announce that last week's initial claims number was revised to over 400K, the first time this important level has been breached, this time in an adverse fashion, in the past 2 month...

 
At 1/18/2012 3:12 PM, Blogger drumbeato said...

Your assessment plays fast & lose with the facts. 20 thousand jobs? Hardly. The company that is actually building the pipeline, & therefore would be doing the hiring, says it would create about 2,500 temp jobs, & 50 permanent jobs.

Secondly, all that oil that would run through the pipeline, ends up in ports on the Gulf of Mexico coast of Texas, where it is loaded onto tankers & shipped overseas where it is refined, & then sold back to us. None of it stays here.

We don't "own" the oil we mine here in North America, we are a part of OPEC, therefore all the oil we mine here goes into the world oil market. In order for domestic oil to stay here, we would need to drop out of OPEC, refine all our own oil stateside, & keep it all for ourselves.

This would require that we nationalize the oil industry, which, I believe would be SOCIALISM, & we all know how you on the Right feel about that.

Republicans also claim the pipeline & more domestic drilling would lower the price of gas at the pumps. Not true. The reason we pay $3.75 a gallon while they pay $7.00 to $10.00 in Europe, is because our government pays bilions in subsidies to big oil to keep the prices artificially down.

Let's have a debate on the pipeline, but lets keep it fact based & not succumb to heated rhetoric by politicians with agendas to push.

 
At 1/18/2012 3:40 PM, Blogger Rick Parker said...

drumbeato

Facts? The Europeans pay the same thing for gas that we do, like you said, world market and all that. But after that the European governments tack on $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon in taxes and presto, chango, $9.00 a gallon gas!

 
At 1/18/2012 3:41 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Methinks-

If we have to intervene in other nations, the Libya model seems like pennies on the Ben Franklins compared to the Iraqistan model.

Perhaps the Libya model is workable. The Iraqistan model is a horrendous burden on productive citizens and taxpayers.

 
At 1/18/2012 3:51 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Drubeato:

Where are you getting the US is part of OPEC? We are most certainly not.

 
At 1/18/2012 3:55 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I'm not with the green weenies on this one but it's a bad political move by Obama...

I think one thing that would have made this proposal irresistible would be that they'd sell the refined products only in the US.

That would have given them the moral high side of the issue and really put Obama in a real bind and not near so easily influenced by the green weenies.

But this basically is a foreign private investor proposal that apparently requires the govt to condemn land belonging to Americans.

I can see the dynamics of a proposal by the Chinese to build a toll road and get the US to condemn private land for the route.

That would not fly no matter how many "jobs" would be produced - right?

but when we say it's about oil to
"reduce foreign dependence" - even when it's not - the dynamics change.

the most curious thing to me is that the administration is not really vigorously defending it's actions and that IS troublesome..and it's a bad sign with folks like the Sierra Club are out in front blathering about it.

bad karma

 
At 1/18/2012 3:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

pseudo benny says: "The Iraqistan model is a horrendous burden on productive citizens and taxpayers."...

Still for all its flaws the 'Iraqistan model' wasn't nearly has horrendous as stimulous model foisted off onto the taxpayer by your dear leader...

 
At 1/18/2012 3:59 PM, OpenID goldtracker said...

This really is amazing and I can't help but think that it will backfire on him come elections. I, for the life of me, can't figure out why he would reject it. The cynic in me thinks that maybe his political team thinks that it would benefit the opposition if he were to sign it. Either that or he really doesn't care about energy, jobs, and getting away from dependency on Middle East fuels.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:03 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g says: "I think one thing that would have made this proposal irresistible would be that they'd sell the refined products only in the US.

That would have given them the moral high side of the issue blah blah blah
"...

Get a grip on reality sir...

 
At 1/18/2012 4:03 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: stimulous model

it's true - a trillion was spent on the stimulus - but unlike the annual 1.5 trillion deficit - it's a one time expenditure.

when you have a 1.5 annual deficit - it converts into 7.5 worth of debt over 5 years. So add 1 trillion to that for the stimulus.

Now - you have 20 trillion in debt instead of 19 trillion.

in 5 more years with no more stimulus - you'll have 27 trillion in debt.

the stimulus was not chump change but the real driver of the debt is the annual 1.5 trillion deficit.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:10 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: "Get a grip on reality sir..."

condemning private property owners land so that a private investor can sell oil on the open market ...

has some issues...

would you have the govt condemn other Americans property rights so that a foreign private company could benefit?

or should the Keystone only be allowed to buy land on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis?

is it okay for a foreign company to get our govt to use eminent domain for a non-public use?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:12 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Is it as poor as going into Libya, Benji?

Not for the Chinese. They are eager to fund a pipeline to the BC coast if the tar sands players are willing to sign supply contracts.

But I don't see how having NATO and the Obama Administration support al Qaeda and letting Libyan weapons get into its hands is a good thing for Americans. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me on that point.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:17 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Again larry g with the lack of a credible source says: "condemning private property owners land so that a private investor can sell oil on the open market"...

BTW can you say (an opinion I was totally against) Kelo decision?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:21 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist

 
At 1/18/2012 4:30 PM, Blogger Eric H said...

"Where are you getting the US is part of OPEC? We are most certainly not."

Except that all OPEC oil exports are forced to be exchanged for US dollars (the ones that don't agree get invaded. see Iraq who started taking euros). Which means all countries that buy OPEC oil have to convert to US dollars - which we print out of thin air. Which is why we are not really interested in less dependence upon foreign oil - it helps us finance our debt AND we get oil for fake green paper. Who would want to screw that up?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:31 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

Here is the text of the rejection.

This is the line I found amusing:
. . the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact

Translation:

"Well, sorta, like, we blame this on Bush, kinda."

Even Jimmy Carter knew the need for energy development. And he's a dunderheaded idiot.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:31 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g, do credible and the New York Times equate?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:33 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> Seems like a poor decision by Obama.

Yes, Benny, and an erupting volcano can warm your tootsies.

And of course you're stupid enough to name Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just curious, Benny -- you have any blog comments dating back to 2002-3 when we went into Afghanistan that shows that was your impression even then, or have you just about-faced like the libtard shill everyone's already long-since figured out you are...?

And did that pre-date or post-date your rather clearly highly effective self-trepanning efforts?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:35 PM, Blogger juandos said...

eric h makes the bizzare claim: "Except that all OPEC oil exports are forced to be exchanged for US dollars (the ones that don't agree get invaded blah blah blah"...

What?!?! Are you serious?!?!

 
At 1/18/2012 4:38 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"And did that pre-date or post-date your rather clearly highly effective self-trepanning efforts?"...

ROFLMAO!

Oh damn obh!

I was drinking coffee when I read that line and now I have clean it all up...

Do you realize coffee stings when it comes out through your nostrils?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Reuters?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:44 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

drumbeato, as you might have guessed, is in full "making shit up" mode:

>>>> We don't "own" the oil we mine here in North America, we are a part of OPEC, therefore all the oil we mine here goes into the world oil market.


OK, here's who is in OPEC:

OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, consists of 12 member nations: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Is the USA listed there? No? Then the USA IS NOT A MEMBER OF OPEC YOU LYING SACK OF EXCRETA

Most of the rest of your idiotic diatribe is equally ignorant and composed of half-wit crap. The USA has not been an oil-exporter for DECADES. In order for US oil to be exported requires specific permitting from the Fed, and there are currently open debates about whether or not we should take North American oil and sell it on the world market at a higher price or to keep it here in order to keep domestic prices down. There are benefits to either option, and the key question is which is better in the long run. And the answer is hardly a trivial or simple one.


Q.E.D., you're making shit up out of thin (hot) air, you lying ephtard.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:45 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> larry g, do credible and the New York Times equate?

No, they never equate, but they sometimes intersect and rhyme.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:45 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"when you have a 1.5 annual deficit - it converts into 7.5 worth of debt over 5 years. So add 1 trillion to that for the stimulus."

First, the stimulus has been built into the baseline as has been pointed out to you before. Second, Obama is President every moment these trillion dollar deficits have occurred. 2 of those yrs he had the most lopsided majorities of any President in decades. Are you really this stupid?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:46 PM, Blogger Paul said...

O Bloody Hell,

"Yes, Benny, and an erupting volcano can warm your tootsies."

That cracked me up.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:47 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" and there are currently open debates about whether or not we should take North American oil and sell it on the world market at a higher price or to keep it here in order to keep domestic prices down"

apparently not part of the current debate... got a link?

 
At 1/18/2012 4:50 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Paul.. it's NOT built into the baseline budget.

It was a ONE SHOT expenditure.

your website link is as phony as they come.

in order for it to be incorporated in the "baseline" budget as you claim.. it would BOOST the current annual deficit from 1.5 trillion to 2.5 trillion.

That's simply not the case.

re: " 2 of those yrs he had the most lopsided majorities of any President in decades. Are you really this stupid?"

are you? Did Bush have a veto?

did he use it?

what about the prior 6 years?

you guys kill me .. you go out of your way to believe what you want to believe and hang the facts.

 
At 1/18/2012 4:53 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g asks: "Reuters?"...

Personally I think you're marginally better of with the AP...

 
At 1/18/2012 4:55 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Business Week?

 
At 1/18/2012 5:06 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"in order for it to be incorporated in the "baseline" budget as you claim.. it would BOOST the current annual deficit from 1.5 trillion to 2.5 trillion."

No, you idiot. There are alot of dynamics here.You keep claiming 1.5 trillion deficit is cast in stone, nothing Obama can do about it. Obama used the stimulus to blow out the budget forever, as was predicted at the time. Also, I love how you blow off a trillion fricking dollars as just a "one shot deal." You know, he just splurged a little. No biggie.

"what about the prior 6 years?"

Bush spent too much money on failed liberal programs like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, to name just two. He didn't run trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, however. The deficit was starting to come down, actually, when Pelosi and Reid's rule began.

 
At 1/18/2012 5:24 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> are you? Did Bush have a veto? did he use it?

WT Freakin' hell does this have to do with Bush you nit?

President Downgrade's for his first term of office total more than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

And, even on your idiotic point attempting to redirect the issue, MOST conservatives were pissed off about the performance of both Bush AND Congress regarding things like this. It's where the Tea Party movement came from. So it's not like no one was complaining before.

 
At 1/18/2012 5:25 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>> President Downgrade's for his first term


DOH!

President Downgrade's deficits for his first term...

 
At 1/18/2012 5:28 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g asks: "Business Week?"...

Yeah, they're a bit more credible for sure...

BTW BW uses 'threaten' which speaks of the potential and actually notes the following: "National Wildlife Federation spokesman Tony Iallonardo says TransCanada shouldn't threaten landowners with court action before the project is approved.

"Without State Department approval, they continue to bully landowners," Iallonardo said.
"...

Now that is interesting...

BTW larry g according to BW TransCanada is asking for 'easements' and not the whole property...

Its not quite as bad as some liberal shriekers are making it out to be...

 
At 1/18/2012 5:34 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" BTW larry g according to BW TransCanada is asking for 'easements' "

right you are.. but then they are also saying this:

" TransCanada sent out a new set of final offer letters this month to landowners who haven't agreed to easements, and those letters mention that the company will pursue eminent domain if an agreement can't be reached."

NOW. As I said before.

If the oil was for US domestic use and not for export - the issue of eminent domain would not be so volatile.

But then of course, if Canada intended to sell the oil only to the Domestic US..they'll likely not need a pipeline 3 times longer than the Alaskan pipeline either.

so we have a foreign company here ..looking for profits for private investors.. so they can sell the oil overseas to the highest bidder.. and they want the US to grant them the power of ED.

how does that smell?

 
At 1/18/2012 5:35 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Juandos,

The "liberal shriekers" are only using the property rights arguments to cover for Obama and their radical environmentalist agenda.

 
At 1/18/2012 5:37 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

not to worry...so far, the best comment I heard about the Keystone fiasco is that the second world war started in the spring of 1939...and the US got in the fight in the fall of 1941. The US will be late...as usual... but eventually it'll "get it".

 
At 1/18/2012 5:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Bush spent too much money on failed liberal programs like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, to name just two. He didn't run trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, however. The deficit was starting to come down, actually, when Pelosi and Reid's rule began. "

whatever Bush had in the budget in the way of annual spending.. did carry forward...

that's the problem.

When you double DOD spending.. it carry's forward to each future year unless cuts are made.

the same is true of Medicare which by law increases expenditures each year.

Neither of those did Obama have anything to do with.

They were in the budget when he got it.

As far as I know he has not added additional annual spending in the budget.

you are right..the deficit varies year to year.. but when the DOD funding goes from 350 to 700+ .. and does not come down.. that's part of the deficit if the spending exceeds revenues - as it does.

If you want a good picture of our dilemma - we take in about 1.3 trillion a year in income taxes.

we spend almost twice that much.

 
At 1/18/2012 5:58 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"As far as I know he has not added additional annual spending in the budget."

How is it possible for you to believe that? Bush's last budget he could legitimately be held responsible for was FY 2008 $2.9 trillion. The 2012 budget is around $3.7 trillion. Can you do simple math, Larry?

 
At 1/18/2012 6:43 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" additional annual spending"

some of the spending in the budget is mandatory - like Medicare.. it will automatically increase.

but what exactly has Obama himself ADDED to the ANNUAL budget - a permanent addition to the budget over and above what he inherited?

I acknowledge the numbers..
but am not sure what inside the budget has increased and if it was programmed spending or new spending.

Historic US Budget

 
At 1/18/2012 6:44 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g says: "whatever Bush had in the budget in the way of annual spending.. did carry forward...

that's the problem
"...

Well now if that's the case then what have you to say about FDR and LBJ?

This ought to be interesting assuming larry g understands the question fully...

 
At 1/18/2012 6:47 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g says: "but what exactly has Obama himself ADDED to the ANNUAL budget - a permanent addition to the budget over and above what he inherited?"...

Well then what did Bush (who didn't incessantly whine about it) inherit from Clinton?

 
At 1/18/2012 7:05 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"I acknowledge the numbers..
but am not sure what inside the budget has increased and if it was programmed spending or new spending."

So now you go from "Obama hasn't spent any more money" to "Obama has no control over the gusher of spending that occurred on his watch with overwhelming majorities in Congress."

We've been down this road before and you're either too stupid, or too willfully ignorant to acknowledge the reality.

 
At 1/18/2012 7:09 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" We've been down this road before and you're either too stupid, or too willfully ignorant to acknowledge the reality. "

nope. we don't know what caused the increase and the 2009 budget was not Obama's anyhow.

The 2009 budget is done in 2008.

you tell me what the increases were if you are convinced that Obama added them.. and convince me.

there's about 500 million more in outlays.. but the revenues shrunk also.

what was the 500 million additional for?

 
At 1/18/2012 7:37 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"you are right..the deficit varies year to year.. but when the DOD funding goes from 350 to 700+ .. and does not come down.. that's part of the deficit if the spending exceeds revenues - as it does"...

Well larry g repeating a debunked statement (debunked more than once) will not make it morph into a fact...

"If you want a good picture of our dilemma..."...

Well actually I think our dilemma is voters with a less than nil knowelege of both economics and recent American history...

The result is we get an Obama and his commie clan of job killers...

 
At 1/18/2012 7:57 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Larry G - just google Obama 2010 budget, and you will see the massive increases he proposed in many departments, like a 34% increase in the EPA budget. Not sure how much of this got through, but he sure tried.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/26/2481196-obama-2010-budget-highlights-by-agency

 
At 1/18/2012 7:57 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

yup.. it makes no sense...

how can you close plants and lose jobs and not have electric outages?

these are ancient mercury polluting plants that were supposed to upgrade - or close down.

Didn't Bush start this?

if you have to build new coal or gas-fired plants to replace these - how does that lose jobs?

do they lose jobs because the newer plants need less personnel to run them?

so we have folks saying jobs will be lost but electricity bills will go up...

hmmm... seems like if you lose employees.. you have less payroll.

help me understand this.

oh.. and leave out all the anti-Obama epitaphs if you can...

;-)

 
At 1/18/2012 8:01 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" 34% increase in the EPA budget."

yeah but that's a gnat on a dogs butt in terms of the whole budget.

I credit Obama with the stimulus spending but it appears that Bush had stimulus spending also.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

 
At 1/18/2012 8:02 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Here is a funny one:

Quote from article with my comments in [brackets]

Obama has said repeatedly that his first fiscal plan would have a two-pronged mission: to reduce the $1 trillion-plus deficit he inherited to $533 billion by 2013 [that worked out well . . .]and make big investments in the future [ok, he did that].
...
"We will each and every one of us have to compromise on certain things we care about [what did his side compromise??], but which we simply cannot afford right now. That's a sacrifice we're going to have to make," Obama said. "What I won't do is sacrifice investments that will make America stronger, more competitive and more prosperous in the 21st century."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/26/news/economy/obama_budget_outline/index.htm

 
At 1/18/2012 8:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Marko - Obama is a politician. Bush was a Politician. McCain was a politician. Romney is a politician.

I'm always amused when we bring up the dumb things they all said... remember the two:

" Cheney to Treasury: "Deficits don't matter"

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter,"

then this gem:

" Bush on Nation Building before Election:

I'm worried about an opponent [Gore] who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence.

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building.

... a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight."

Obama has some funnies too.

 
At 1/18/2012 8:22 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"these are ancient mercury polluting plants that were supposed to upgrade - or close down"...

And you know this how larry g?

Upgrade at who's expense? And about that mercury, who's making that call and what are their bona fides?

"Didn't Bush start this?"...

Well if he did its a suprise to me but maybe...

"seems like if you lose employees.. you have less payroll"...

So not only do electrical plants hit the skids and put people on the streets but all the other places that buy their electricity and can't afford the new and higher rates also end up putting people on the streets and then Obama surely becomes the undisputed food stamp champ since the inception of this LBJ program...

 
At 1/18/2012 8:31 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Air pollution: Obama administration seeks stricter limits on mercury pollution from power plants

but if there are fewer power plant employees.. that's less people to pay so the cost for electricity should come down, eh?

of course..building new plants will increase costs but note in the article provided it says:

" But some power companies already have moved to clean up their coal plants. And supporters note that recent power auctions guarantee there will be enough electricity to meet demand for years after the rule takes effect, even if some older plants are shuttered.

"It is disappointing, irresponsible and coldhearted for the power companies that are operating these plants not to make the sensible, relatively easy and inexpensive changes the (Environmental Protection Agency) is requesting," said Mary Gade, a Chicago lawyer who served as President George W. Bush's regional EPA administrator."

 
At 1/18/2012 9:03 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"The 2009 budget is done in 2008."

Obama signed over $400 billion of the 2009 budget in February of 2009. Bush did not have much, if anything to do with the 2009 budget because Pelosi and Reid used continuing resolutions to fund the government for that fiscal year.

"nope. we don't know what caused the increase...."

It's 2012, dipshit. Obama has had 3 yrs to deal with the problem, and there's nothing on the radar to indicate he even has plans to do it. Spending is up $800 billion since 2008, and you're scratching your balls pretending(I hope) to wonder if Obama had anything to do with it.

"there's about 500 million more in outlays.. but the revenues shrunk also."

So that answers my question about whether you can do simple math.

 
At 1/18/2012 9:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

tell me what you think of this:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

 
At 1/18/2012 11:24 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Can you do simple math, Larry?

Clearly not

some of the spending in the budget is mandatory - like Medicare.. it will automatically increase.

... the fixing of which problems Democrats -- YES DEMOCRATS -- have fought tooth and nail with every political and media gimmick they have ever come up with.

What is the Democrat solution?

Why, add MORE forced entitlements like Obamacare to an already VASTLY overbloated budget.

It's hard to be even vaguely civil with idiots like you making inane comments like the above.

The GOP failed to FIX problems consistently created almost entirely by DEM Congresses, and even went along with imbecilic expansions like the one of Medicare under Bush -- which has already been acked as screwed up.

This pretty much anyone sensible agrees with. But Dems now try and claim that the basic, fundamental problems of the situation are... caused by the GOP.

Right. Eph off, you're a perambulatory rectal orifice currently engaged in sodomy.

 
At 1/18/2012 11:41 PM, Blogger kmg said...

Benjamin would at least be more entertaining if he were one of those 'Elvis is Still Alive' nuts...

 
At 1/19/2012 6:45 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

o'bloody... I think you've find that a number of Dems support reforming entitlements but reforming entitlements won't fix the budget and that's the problem with the GOP and folks like you.

The appropriated entitlements Medicare Part B and MedicAid comprise about 600 billion of the budget.

the other entitlements comprise another 400 billion.

DOD and National Defense comprise about 1.3 trillion.

we take in 1.3 trillion in taxes.

even if we zero funded all appropriated entitlements - we'd still have a deficit but realistically - you're not going to zero fund entitlements.

Not even the most right wing of Republicans are dumb enough to propose that.

There were two deficit commissions.

I support both of their recommendations OR ANY proposal that accomplishes what they accomplish by equal parts of cutting entitlements, cutting DOD and increasing revenue after we've cut and are still in the hole.

but the idea that entitlements alone is the source of the deficit is really ignorant and holding that view puts you in group that is really not serious about dealing with the problems.

but then again most anti-govt folks are disconnected from the real world anyhow.

 
At 1/19/2012 10:01 AM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g attempting rationalize the at best questionable efforts of the food stamp champ administrtion's actions says: "but if there are fewer power plant employees.. that's less people to pay so the cost for electricity should come down, eh?"...

So what you seem to be implying is that you're happy with the idea of productive people out of work, right?

This Chicago Tribune article goes on parrot the factless and always questionable and dishonest EPA content...

"And supporters note that recent power auctions guarantee there will be enough electricity to meet demand for years after the rule takes effect"...

The above sentence is at best total BS

What is ironically funny about this Tribune article is that it comes from a state that can ill afford the costs of more compliance based on shoddy science...

 
At 1/19/2012 10:12 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" larry g attempting rationalize the at best questionable efforts of the food stamp champ administrtion's actions says: "but if there are fewer power plant employees.. that's less people to pay so the cost for electricity should come down, eh?"... "

tell me specifically what Obama has done to expand food stamps to people previously ineligible.

Using your criteria, anyone who is president during a recession becomes a "food stamp" president.

so much for your illicit premise.


So what you seem to be implying is that you're happy with the idea of productive people out of work, right?

no. I'm asking that IF they ARE productive - how can they not work and the system still operates will less money paid.

it would be the same question if a company lays off people who are "productive" but the company has found ways to maintain/increase productivity without them.

would you also advocate keeping them ?


"This Chicago Tribune article goes on parrot the factless and always questionable and dishonest EPA content..."

there are many other links, guy including some power companies.

" "And supporters note that recent power auctions guarantee there will be enough electricity to meet demand for years after the rule takes effect"...

The above sentence is at best total BS"

nope... it's true - and it's going to be even more true with the advent of cheaper nat gas and nat-gas power generation.

Many smaller companies are now building what is known as "dispatch" plants that have a minimal number of employees and can fire up and put power on the grid in minutes...

the grid is decentralizing and auctions for nat gas dispatch power is part of it.

A old-technology coal plant not only spews mercury but it takes hours to power up or down and even in a low power mode.. it's spewing mercury.

 
At 1/19/2012 10:49 AM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g says: "nope... it's true - and it's going to be even more true with the advent of cheaper nat gas and nat-gas power generation"...

Hmmm, sadly it seems that your ability to read is on par with your questionable math skills...

"tell me specifically what Obama has done to expand food stamps to people previously ineligible"...

Do your own homework, I'm tired of spoon feeding you...

larry g I note that you just can't help yourself: "the other entitlements comprise another 400 billion.

DOD and National Defense comprise about 1.3 trillion
"...

I keep telling you that if even you keep repeating a lie its not going magically morph into a fact...

"A old-technology coal plant not only spews mercury but it takes hours to power up or down and even in a low power mode.. it's spewing mercury"....

Again more of the factless BS that keep liberals stoked and in a sweating frenzy...

 
At 1/19/2012 11:09 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

larry g says: "nope... it's true - and it's going to be even more true with the advent of cheaper nat gas and nat-gas power generation"...

Hmmm, sadly it seems that your ability to read is on par with your questionable math skills...

"tell me specifically what Obama has done to expand food stamps to people previously ineligible"...

Do your own homework, I'm tired of spoon feeding you...

do YOU READ guy? 10/20/2008


larry g I note that you just can't help yourself: "the other entitlements comprise another 400 billion.

DOD and National Defense comprise about 1.3 trillion"...

I keep telling you that if even you keep repeating a lie its not going magically morph into a fact...

this is 2010 but will suffice:

revenues = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

expenditures = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

why are revenues important?

because 865 billion is FICA which is a payroll tax that prepays SS and Medicare Part A and has nothing to do with the appropriated entitlements which have everything to do with the non-FICA budget and deficit and thus subject to cuts.

cutting SS and Medicare Part A is dumb because by law they both cannot spend more than FICA generates.

FICA/SS/Part A AUTOMATICALLY reduce benefits so "cutting" them to help the non-FICA budget makes no sense.

If you look at the expenditure chart - you'll see this:

Medicare & MedicAid - 793 billion
SS - 701 billion

but remember - 865 billion of that comes from FICA not income taxes.

so what is left that IS the subject of income taxes and the general revenue budget is 1494-854 = 640 billion. Now add back to that things like SNAP/unemployment/etc but the total for those is in the 400 billion range which then makes entitlements = one trillion and DOD/Nat security about one trillion and the deficit = 1.5 trillion.

even if you cut entitlements in half - you'd still have a trillion deficit.

truth.

"A old-technology coal plant not only spews mercury but it takes hours to power up or down and even in a low power mode.. it's spewing mercury"....

Again more of the factless BS that keep liberals stoked and in a sweating frenzy."

apparently not - even some power plant operators agree.

and this initiative started back during Bush's term...

 
At 1/19/2012 11:34 AM, Blogger juandos said...

wikipedia larry g?!?!

ROFLMAO! Are you serious?!?!

Get a grip on reality...

"apparently not - even some power plant operators agree"...

More of that stunning reading skill on display again larry g?

"and this initiative started back during Bush's term"...

Apparently you conviently failed to mention it didn't go anywhere while Bush was in office...

 
At 1/19/2012 12:03 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

CATO?

ROFLMAO! Are you serious?!?!

the wiki by the way has 85 separate references and 15 additional reference websites to support the info.

how many does your CATO link have?

Zip? i.e. their own synthesized and un-referenced data?

and "coming soon"

Coming Soon

Homeland Security
Interior
Social Security

When you are talking about the Federal Budget - and deficits and cuts to reduce the deficit - you have to understand the two primary revenue streams - FICA and Income taxes.

FICA - by law - cannot pay out any more in benefits than FICA brings in - in revenues.

and FICA can only be spent on dedicated/earmarked programs and not on anything else.

There might be an argument about payroll taxes and how much but that argument has virtually nothing to do with the non-FICA budget revenues and expenditures including what is known as "appropriated" expenditures for DOD and Entitlements (that are not SS and Medicare Part A).

Once you separate FICA revenues and FICA expenditures from the budget - what you have left is the legitimate candidates for cuts and their primary funding source - income taxes.

You've apparently not made that connection because most of your favorite right-wing sites don't even acknowledge it and routinely mix/match FICA revenues with Income Tax Revenues and pretend that all the expenditures are candidates for "downsizing"...

thus the CATO notice that downsizing Social Security was "coming soon" as they know that once they get into FICA vs Income Taxes and earmarked entitlements funded by FICA verses appropriated entitlements funded by income taxes - that the candidates for cuts is more limited.

the only thing that would happen if you "cut" SS and Medicare Part B right now is that you'd cause more surpluses from FICA by taking in more FICA than you were paying out in benefits.

But that would be dumb because by law FICA cannot pay out more than it takes in - in revenues anyhow.

Social Security and Medicare Part A, unlike the non-FICA side of the budget automatically cut back benefits if FICA does not have enough revenues to fund them.

That's where the 75% of "scheduled benefits" comes from.

but FACTs are not really something that really appeal to folks of your type anyhow... just grab whatever right-wing website or online publication that suits your philosophy can claim it as fact.

want facts:

try these:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01199sp.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixD.shtml#1098293

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/tfmp/tfmp.htm

http://www.cbo.gov/search/sitesearch.cfm?criteria=deficit+projection

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12375/08-05-Long-TermSocialSecurityProjections.pdf

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

you'll not see any of these links on your right wing propaganda sites and there is a reason why and it's called the truth.

 
At 1/19/2012 12:49 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"the wiki by the way has 85 separate references and 15 additional reference websites to support the info"...

Just because wiki lists these supposed references doesn't mean they exist...

"you'll not see any of these links on your right wing propaganda sites"...

Again you've proven yourself to be a liar larry g but then I'm sure that's not a problem for you...

 
At 1/19/2012 12:59 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"the wiki by the way has 85 separate references and 15 additional reference websites to support the info"...

Just because wiki lists these supposed references doesn't mean they exist...

but they DO ... AND YOU CAN VERIFY THEM AND if the link is broke - you can report it and they will fix it or remove it.


"you'll not see any of these links on your right wing propaganda sites"...

Again you've proven yourself to be a liar larry g but then I'm sure that's not a problem for you...

you provide a CATO site for downsizing the govt.. I clicked on DOD and got to some numbers - no references guy.. where did these numbers come from?

they make this statement:

" The department will spend about $721 billion in fiscal 2011, "

no footnote,no reference

they talk about military expenditures and their proposed cuts here:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense/proposed-cuts

no footnotes, no references...

 
At 1/19/2012 2:13 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> I'm worried about an opponent [Gore] who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence.

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building.


The distinction is if we're REbuilding a nation we've knocked down, or just going Mary Worth on some random nation like Yugoslavia or Rwanda, where we have no vested interests NOR do we have any obligations to its people as a result of anything we've done to their governmental infrastructure.

This is rather duh, but you've been exchanging hammer shots to the head with benny, so four-letter words are becoming complex for you.

 
At 1/19/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The distinction is if we're REbuilding a nation we've knocked down, or just going Mary Worth on some random nation like Yugoslavia or Rwanda, where we have no vested interests NOR do we have any obligations to its people as a result of anything we've done to their governmental infrastructure."

so.. it's okay to nation build if we invade them?

but we don't nation-build countries we don't invade?

forgive me BH..but you're more wacked out than I thought...

I do not think the average person understands "nation-building" the way you do... most folks see invasion of other countries equally unacceptable because it inevitably means nation-building and that makes invading other countries not a reasonable option from the get go.

you're either very clever or very dumb ..or both..

 
At 1/19/2012 3:07 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"tell me specifically what Obama has done to expand food stamps to people previously ineligible. "

I see Larry is still proving to everyone just how dumb are Obama supporters.

"tell me specifically what Obama has done to expand food stamps to people previously ineligible. "

He increased eligibility and upped the benefits as part of the stimulus. Once again, this demonstrates your claim the stimulus was a "one shot deal" is pure bullshit. As I said, much of the stimulus is now built into the baseline.


Now you will forget anyone told you this and repeat the same idiocies in futre threads.

 
At 1/19/2012 3:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" He increased eligibility and upped the benefits as part of the stimulus"

can you provide a cite?

I know that foot stamp eligibility was expanded when the Farm Bill was passed - and that bill was passed over a George Bush Veto but if you have a link for Obama, I'd appreciate you providing it.

 
At 1/19/2012 3:17 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times."

And you wonder if Obama has mad any effort to expand food stamps when the economic geniuses who make up his failed administration believe the program creates jobs.

 
At 1/19/2012 3:49 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"but they DO ... AND YOU CAN VERIFY THEM AND if the link is broke - you can report it and they will fix it or remove it."...

Why do you think I mock you and other users who are to lazy to do anything but turn to wiki...

Yeah the clowns do list references but all often it never about what was in the wiki posting, sometimes is was diametrically opposite of what wiki posting was all about....

Your inane comments about Cato (not conservative but libertarians) proves you're not competent enough to read what's there or are to lazy to find out if your preconceived notions will be dashed on the rocks of reality...

 
At 1/19/2012 4:55 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"but they DO ... AND YOU CAN VERIFY THEM AND if the link is broke - you can report it and they will fix it or remove it."...

Why do you think I mock you and other users who are to lazy to do anything but turn to wiki..."

Wiki is a STARTING PLACE to FIND the references from which you can:

1. find other references
2. verify info at more than one site

you "mock" as you rely on biased sites ... that's self-imposed ignorance guy.


"Yeah the clowns do list references but all often it never about what was in the wiki posting, sometimes is was diametrically opposite of what wiki posting was all about...."

sometimes - but if you exercise due diligence in finding more than one site that tends to support/replicate... that's why you do that.. rather than relying on a site like CATO that is much more careless about giving accurate references that you can actually verify their info.

They'll give you the book but not the page number...

On the defense narrative..I could find no links at all.

On their Medicare they had references to the docs but no page numbers and their data did not jive with the reference.

I check references - on Wiki AND on other sites.

I'm NOT looking for something that agrees with my philosophy.

I'm looking for data that is replicated and verifiable with the obvious caveat that I'm human and do screw up - as you do but you won't admit it.

"Your inane comments about Cato (not conservative but libertarians) proves you're not competent enough to read what's there or are to lazy to find out if your preconceived notions will be dashed on the rocks of reality..."

yadda yadda blah blah blah

yawn

when a site like CATO that purports to be doing an analysis uses words like "pyramid scheme" and does not acknowledge that Medicare is really 4 different programs with 2 different funding sources... we know they are propagandizing and not analyzing..

it's an act.

and you fall for it because you won't do due diligence on the facts.

 
At 1/19/2012 4:55 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"can you provide a cite?"


Sure Larry, Google is just a click away but I'll do your research for you. Here's a story from a Keynesian point of view touting the wonders of the boy genius President's expansion of food stamps. Give people free stuff, stand back and watch the job engine roar!

 
At 1/19/2012 5:00 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

thanks for the link.

You are correct. I am wrong.

still not clear if it is permanent or temporary.

Most folks don't know that part of Obama's stimulus was the $400 make work pay credit for the past two years. This year it is gone - so it was clearly "temporary".
?

 
At 1/19/2012 6:22 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"rather than relying on a site like CATO that is much more careless about giving accurate references that you can actually verify their info"...

There's no doubt about larry g, you're either lying for some reason that makes no sense to me or you're so inept that you end up making the wild and unsubstantiated comments you post here...

Calling Cato careless is like saying larry g actually has a clue...

 
At 1/19/2012 6:58 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Calling Cato careless is like saying larry g actually has a clue"

their DOD number.does not jive with their stated source's number.

they promote themselves as performing "careful" analysis but when you look closer at what they are doing - it just using numbers that they hope no one will actually check.

and ..in folks like your case.. they are correct... because all you are really after is not "facts" but just getting the goods on entitlements without actually fact checking their numbers.

the narrative itself on Medicare is hilarious... they don't use verifiable facts.. they seem to be parroting other biased sites.

it's hard to be taken seriously as a "libertarian" site when you whack the data....make mistakes..misrepresent...obsfuscate

If you are anyone else is truly serious about entitlement spending..you need to know the ALL facts.

and CATO is not supplying them.

Medicare Part A is funded from FICA

Medicare Part B, C and D are funded from premiums and tax subsidies.

the numbers matter if you are going to compare entitlement impacts to the budget and deficit.

Medicare Part A adds nothing to the general budget nor the deficit.

Medicare Part A is required by law not to exceed the 2.9% payroll tax revenues - this year = 229 billion.

Medicare Part B - on the other hand spends 270 billion of which 58 billion is premiums and 204 is direct taxpayer subsidy.

these numbers are important if you are comparing entitlement spending verses DOD spending and how much they comprise of the total budget.

 
At 1/20/2012 8:23 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"the narrative itself on Medicare is hilarious... they don't use verifiable facts.. they seem to be parroting other biased sites"...

Geez larry g! Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?

 
At 1/20/2012 9:27 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

the question is are you with your support of orgs like CATO who basically demagogue and spew disinformation?

 
At 1/20/2012 6:36 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"the question is are you with your support of orgs like CATO who basically demagogue and spew disinformation?"...

So you're not done embarrassing yourself larry g...

Liberals just hate to be outted for what they are...

 
At 1/20/2012 6:56 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

oh holy GAWD Juandos...

if CATO was actually SERIOUS about promoting a better understanding in an effort to gain support for changes... they would not be using bomb-throwing words in their so-called "analysis".

What's the purpose of what CATO does when they basically turn off everyone by their hard core true believers?

This goes to what the real purpose of what they do really is and it's clear that's it's really not to foster better understandings and consensus on how to make changes.

They're your basic "churn" factory stirring up hate and discontent in your basic culture war.

they have no way forward.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home