Click to enlarge.
The American Gas Association has just released a study titled "Identifying Key Economic Impacts of Recent Increases in U.S. Natural Gas Production." Parts of the Executive Summary and Conclusion appears below.
Executive Summary: The recent success of shale gas and oil production in the United States coupled with only modest demand growth has resulted in measurable declines in domestic natural gas prices, which has benefited both gas customers as well as the overall economy. Lower natural gas commodity prices have in part:
- Led to savings of almost $250 billion for end-use natural gas customers over the past three years (see chart above)
- Provided a typical residential customer more than $175 in savings during 2010 alone
- Helped the average commercial customer to save more than $1,100 in their 2010 annual bill
- Contributed to the creation of 334,000 jobs in natural gas dependent industries during the past two years
- Contributed to an analytical vision that the shale gas revolution may be responsible for bringing a million new manufacturing jobs to this country by 2025
- Pointed to production activities of oil and gas in the United States that were responsible for nine percent of new U. S. jobs growth in 2011.
Lower natural gas prices have also helped create jobs during one of the worst recessions on
record:
- Job creation directly tied to energy extraction and delivery accounted for about 150,000 new jobs in 2011
- Expansion of natural gas-dependent industries could lead to an additional one million manufacturing jobs by 2025
That $250 B is turning into increased retail sales, car sales, savings, debt-paydowns, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo, here we have an economic stimulus that didn't cost taxpayers a dime.
"So, here we have an economic stimulus that didn't cost taxpayers a dime."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet it's one that President "'Shovel-ready' was not as shovel-ready as we expected" Obama routinely derides as an "energy source of the past."
'And yet it's one that President "'Shovel-ready' was not as shovel-ready as we expected" Obama routinely derides as an "energy source of the past."'...
ReplyDeleteAhhh paul it runs so much deeper than merely energy with Obama...
From the American Enterprise blog: Obama’s dangerous words about profits and free enterprise
By James Pethokoukis
May 22, 2012, 11:14 am
I'm puzzled by the phrase, "created xxx jobs". Wouldn't it be fair to say that there are an equivalent number of "jobs" as there are people in the world? There is an endless supply of (productive) activities a person can employ one's mind and efforts toward. So would it be more accurate to say that shale gas provided employment in more productive activities than before shale gas? Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but it seems that when we say "create jobs" it is not only false, it gives the left ammunition to claim that government could create jobs too - they could create enough jobs for everyone. Yes, those jobs would poorly allocate individual resources and our standard of living would dramatically decline, but we'd all have "jobs".
ReplyDelete[probably should have thought this through before posting my out-loud thinking]
"So, here we have an economic stimulus that didn't cost taxpayers a dime."
ReplyDeletemore to the point, here we have an economic stimulus that is actually stimulus as opposed to your typical "shovel ready" nonsense that crows out more than it creates.
this harvard study demonstrates that most "stimulus" and pork actually has negative net effects.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf
how "stimulus" became the go to play in light of this and its disastrous failure in the 30's can only have its roots in political cronyism. the economic data on it's deleterious effects is quite clear.
Just what I want: a job that needs a shovel.
ReplyDeleteOTOH.. much of what Heritage blathers tends to also be .... shovel ready...
ReplyDelete;-)
The Calafia Beach Pundit, Scott Grannis, states this, in remarks about Prof. Perry's post:
ReplyDelete" I can think of no better way to illustrate why the supply-side view of how the economy works is better than the Keynesian demand-side view."
"OTOH.. much of what Heritage blathers tends to also be .... shovel ready"...
ReplyDeleteYou liberals just hate it when the Heritage folks undercut all your stances with facts don't you larry g?
I think its hilarious...
" undercut all your stances with facts"
ReplyDeletewell.. if they were actual facts instead of assorted guano and equally-smelly propaganda...
anything with their name on it is automatically shovel-ready IMHO.
anything with their name on it is automatically shovel-ready IMHO.
ReplyDeleteOh, I totally just got your joke earlier! That's hilarious!
"well.. if they were actual facts instead of assorted guano and equally-smelly propaganda"...
ReplyDeleteSays the liberal who spews nothing but said propaganda...
LMAO!
Nice try larry g...
Now its your turn to try to debunk this scurrilous comment about your boyfriend...
well... geeze.. Can Obama spend a dime without Congress appropriating first?
ReplyDeletewhat kind of scurrilous point are u making here anyhow? more "shovel-ready", I bet...
;-)
"anything with their name on it is automatically shovel-ready IMHO."
ReplyDeleteBut you'll link the Soros funded sewer site Media Matters in a heartbeat.
more "shovel-ready", I bet...
ReplyDeleteI probably shouldn't be encouraging you like this, but I can't help but chuckle every time you write that.
Larry,
ReplyDelete"well... geeze.. Can Obama spend a dime without Congress appropriating first?"
So your argument is...procedural. Is anything ever Obama's fault, Larry?
" So your argument is...procedural. Is anything ever Obama's fault, Larry? "
ReplyDeletejust the facts man....
how can he be accused of "spending" when he can't do it unless Congress says so...
see that's what we call the claim that he is "spending".... "shovel ready".
see that's the difference between Heritage/AEI and Media Matters.
One of them tells it like it is and the other two can't get it right to save their hind ends...
Larry,
ReplyDelete"just the facts man...."
You have no facts, just spin for your hero Obama.
"how can he be accused of "spending" when he can't do it unless Congress says so..."
I can't figure out if you're simply that ignorant, or just that much of an Obama boot licker. Probably a little of both.
"One of them tells it like it is and the other two can't get it right to save their hind ends..."
~Larry the "just the facts" guy.
well.. can the President spend if Congress has not approved and appropriated?
ReplyDeleteI doubt it.
but perhaps you can show otherwise.
well.. can the President spend if Congress has not approved and appropriated?
ReplyDeleteWell, there are certain ways he can:
Executive order (the most popular)
War powers
Agency appointments
I don't want to thrust myself into this discussion, so I'll say my bit and leave:
The President cannot spend without Congress. This is true. The opposite is also true: Congress cannot spend without the President. Everything needs his signature.
no need to run away Jon....
ReplyDeleteI just don't think the Prez can spend great gobs of money unless Congress has done two things:
1. - they have to approve the spending
2. - they have to actually appropriate the money.
there may be some "mad money" the Prez can spend on various sundry things but when Obama is accused of "massive spending"... he cannot do that without Congress... I'm pretty sure.
All those "shovel-ready" jobs were approved by Congress before a penny could be spent by the Prez...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png
Larry,
ReplyDelete"well.. can the President spend if Congress has not approved and appropriated?"
Did you bother with this same bullshit argument when Bush was President, or did you vomit the Media Matters line then? Let me guess...
Obama demanded a trillion dollar stimulus in 2009. He was given one by Pelosi and Reid. So you're saying it's all on Pelosi and Reid? One of his first acts was to sign a $400 omnibus spending bill for fy2009. He's simply blameless?
Seriously?
He demanded a $440 billion dollar stimulus to piss away on his fellow parasites late last year. If Boehner/Reid had given it to him, would he not be accountable?
Why does the President even bother to submit a budget then?
You're a liberal clown, Larry, but you pretend here to be all about "the facts" and pragmatism and "keeping us honest."
Just like your hero Obama.
Right,
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the checks and balances of our system. Congress has the money, but needs the President to approve it.
Although, there are ways a president can force Congress to spend money, de facto if not de jure.
Hypothetical (and this is strictly hypothetical): let's say the President exercises his war powers to attack another country (the president can order military action, but must seek Congressional approval within 72 hours or withdraw troops). He could go to Congress and, de facto, force them to spend more on defense.
I realize this is a ridiculous scenario. Just something floating around in my head.
" Did you bother with this same bullshit argument when Bush was President,"
ReplyDeleteActually I gave him a bye because of the terrorist attacks.... big mistake.
as far as a Prez "demanding"....
ha ha ha...
you mean like Bush with the tax cuts, two wars, WMD and Medicare Part D egged on by Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney ?
you're such a KIDDER!
We had a balanced budget before Bush "demanded" that Congress cut taxes, eh?
Bush was the Clown guy. The man said we "had no choice" but to dork the Federal Budget.
He stood in front of the microphone "explaining" how we had to rescue the car companies and pass a stimulus.. with a stupid "deer in the headlight" look... like "what happened?"....
Good LORD Paul... didn't you see him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5kRVfmMoE&feature=related
this is YOUR guy? :-)
One other thing,
ReplyDeleteObama can certainly veto any spending bills that come his way. As example, he routinely threatens to veto any GOP attempts to cut spending on his freeloader constitutents.
So, yeah. How 'bout them low natural gas prices saving people money!
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDelete"you mean like Bush with the tax cuts, two wars, WMD and Medicare Part D egged on by Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney ?"
And there goes your argument.
So the President does bare some blame after all, huh Larry?
I agree, Bush pissed away too much money, but I'd take his deficits any day over your hero Obama's.
" He could go to Congress and, de facto, force them to spend more on defense."
ReplyDeleteI don't think so....
They have to approve the money..
" Congress can always pull the purse strings. Wars demand a great deal of money, and the president can't reach into the U.S. Treasury without an authorization and appropriation. To spend money, he needs Congress's approval.
An excellent monograph, entitled "Pulling the Commander In Chief's Purse Strings," explains such use of purse power. The authors, William C. Banks & Peter Raven-Hansen, note that this was how the Vietnam war ended. It wasn't pretty:
Eventually, Congress adopted Senator Thomas Eagleton's amendment... which provided that "none of the funds herein appropriated under this act or heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in, over or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over Laos by United States forces." Although this first end-the-war effort was successfully vetoed by the President [Nixon] on June 27, on June 29 Congress approved and the embattled President signed the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, which required an end to all U.S. "combat activities" in Southeast Asia by August 15. The June 29 measure was a compromise: the restriction was broadened to include all of Southeast Asia, but was put off to give the President forty-five more bombing days....
Upon the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Southeast Asia, the U.S.-supported governments in the region rapidly collapsed. Operating under the strict limits of the end-the-war amendments, President Ford authorized limited use of U.S. military force in the final evacuations of Cambodia and South Vietnam in 1975.
In short, there is only one sure way Congress can stop President Bush from going to war with Saddam: cut off his funds. Without money there can be no war."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/
Jon,
ReplyDeleteIt's really sad you have to explain the whole "checks and balances" thing to Larry. This guy actually votes!
" So, yeah. How 'bout them low natural gas prices saving people money! "
ReplyDelete:-)
well.. it was that "shovel ready" comment that got us "diverted"...
"shovel-ready" - requires Congressional Approval unless of course it comes from Natural Gas!
Yet another unthought reply from larry g: "well... geeze.. Can Obama spend a dime without Congress appropriating first?"...
ReplyDeleteAhhh, so you're not paying attention to the realities of what was happening in Congress in '08, '09, '10 and now its everyone else's fault, eh?
Hilarious old son...
geeze Juanos...
ReplyDeleteFBarack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president
The American Gas Association has just released a study titled...
ReplyDeleteIt should have been titled, How We Destroyed Capital Because We Could Not See the Crash Coming.
Or, "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?"
From what I see the natural gas rigs are in free fall as the companies are chasing 'shale liquids' in the hope that they can attract enough investment capital and loans to earn some more big paydays for management before insolvency.
Larry,
ReplyDelete"Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president."
Um, don't you mean the current Congress? Your new b.s. claim is a complete 180 from your previous nonsense claim with which you spent the thread insulting everyone's intelligence.
You might want to consider the virtue of consistency when you are pretending here to be anything other than an Obama boot-licker.
Yes. A more correct way of looking at it is to say he has PRESIDED over....
ReplyDeleteAll Presidents have a role in the spending in terms of what they ask for - and what Congress agrees to or not.
but to characterize this Prez as having presided over the biggest spending increases in the last 50 years is 180 degrees false.
It is exactly the opposite - the SMALLEST in 50 years and that is even with the stimulus included.
but the think tanks and Pacs against him say he has spent the most
and people believe it.... that's propaganda.....
I'm not a "booster" of Obama - I'm just opposed to the non-stop false characterizations
and while we're talking about drilling...and resources...
" Arctic Ocean Drilling Stands to Open New Oil Frontier"
" Barring a successful last-minute legal challenge by environmental groups, Shell will begin drilling test wells off the coast of northern Alaska in July, opening a new frontier in domestic oil exploration and accelerating a global rush to tap the untold resources beneath the frozen ocean. "
" And now, the president is writing a new chapter in the nation’s unfolding energy transformation, in this case to the benefit of fossil fuel producers.
“We never would have expected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
"FBarack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president"...
ReplyDeleteGood one larry g but James Pethokoukis already handed Rex Nutting his nutz on this bit of propaganda......
"FBarack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president"...
ReplyDeleteWe told you to stop taking crystal meth Larry. When spending is at record levels you don't get to claim that Obama is prudent because the increase in spending is low. Of course, that requires that you understand lgic and grade four math, which may to too much to expect from you.
Larry,
ReplyDelete"Yes. A more correct way of looking at it is to say he has PRESIDED over...."
In other words, you bumbled onto a new talking point you think is more defensible. Yeah, nobody will notice you've completely changed your argument....
"I'm not a "booster" of Obama - I'm just opposed to the non-stop false characterizations."
Garbage. That's all you do here, along with incompetently pretending to be Mr. Justthefactsmaam.
"It is exactly the opposite - the SMALLEST in 50 years and that is even with the stimulus included."
Only if you use the 2009 supposedly one-time emergency spending(including the stimulus) as the baseline while blaming fy2009 entirely on Bush. You can't do that because Bush never signed a fy2009 budget because Pelosi/Reid funded the government by continuing resolutions. However, Obama signed a $440 billion omnibus 2009 spending bill as one of his first official acts. Somehow, that gets added to Bush's tab even while Obama claims any job creation for 2009. Upshot is spending was supposed to go DOWN after the massive expenditures of the stimulus and bailouts. Instead, Obama and the Democrats built it all into the baseline(as I've pointed out to you a million times.) Juandos' link illustrates all this.
In other words, it's tailor-made-for-you-obvious-nonsense-to-everyone-else.
and while we're talking about drilling...and resources...
ReplyDelete" Arctic Ocean Drilling Stands to Open New Oil Frontier"
So? All that means is he's opening up a fraction of the 87% of offshore drilling he banned. And Shell should be careful. As the article states, "The move also provides the president a measure of political cover. “Alaska tends to be a litmus test for the energy debate,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, director of energy policy research at Rice University. “When Romney says the president is anti-drilling and causes high gas prices, Obama can turn around and say, ‘I approved drilling in Alaska.’ ”
Let's see what happens to Shell's drilling in his 2nd term when he has more "flexibility."
2009 was Bush's budget guys...
ReplyDeleteya'll live in a dream world here.
here's the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png
and
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
Obama got the increased budgets from 2000 - 2009... and a big part of the increased budget was DOD and Homeland Security - doubled from 2000.
Obama gets the blame for not advocating CUTTING the budget...but he did not create these budgets - they basically carried over from the Bush years.
"2009 was Bush's budget guys..."
ReplyDeleteWhat a clown. You have COMPLETELY ABANDONED "well... geeze.. Can Obama spend a dime without Congress appropriating first?" you spent all day yesterday arguing because you think you've got a golden "Bush did it" defense.
"Obama got the increased budgets from 2000 - 2009"
So you can't actually refute anything that has been pointed out to you about fy2009, you just plow through and ignore the facts like any Obama voting moron would do. Congrats, your hero would be proud of you.
1. - The Prez does not set the budget, congress does
ReplyDelete2. - The budgets run in FISCAL YEARs that precede any newly-elected Prez whether it be Bush or Obama.
The truth here is that Obama did not increase spending except for what Congress approved and they approved a relatively small amount compared to the existing yoy deficits that Obama had nothing to do with creating.
But this is not really about the truth to start with. It's about propaganda.... from those who hate Obama...
the only "clowns" here are those that can't deal with the clear truth.
larry g just how stupid do you think we are?
ReplyDeletelarry g levels?
First you make inane claims that are shot down by facts, then you come back with sources that have a long and distinguished track records for fraudulent information and you're wondering about someone's else's reality?
Really?
Its not like anyone is claiming Bush didn't spend recklessly but Obama and his Democrat allies have set new records of wasteful and in some instances questionably legal spending...
Jundos.. what does your link have to do with Govt spending under Bush and Obama?
ReplyDeleteHere's the VERIFIABLE FACT using actual real data:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
you guys kill me.
you put forth one lie and when rebutted.. you replace it with another....
Your entire perspective is based on untruths and propaganda....
the simple truth is that when Obama took office the already-existing budget was in deficit and had been in deficit for years... and Obama had not had anything to do with that existing deficit.
It's true that he did not cut it but it's also true that he did not create it.
In fact, right now, the "hit" on the Dems in Congress is that they have not passed a budget in 1000 days.
It's TRUE so what are they doing?
They're doing continuing resolutions of the budget that was in place, 1000 days ago.
larry g whines petulantly: "what does your link have to do with Govt spending under Bush and Obama?"...
ReplyDeleteI already gave you the Pethokoukis regarding spending...
That last link was just to show you how your boyfriend was spending money we don't have...
Its kind of like this link again demonstrating your boyfriend's inability to spend extorted tax dollars intelligently...
Then larry g you must be under the impression that if you repeat a lie often enough it will morph into a fact with your repetitive use of the bogus politifact source...
Seriously don't you ever consider thinking skeptically?
"the simple truth is that when Obama took office the already-existing budget was in deficit and had been in deficit for years... and Obama had not had anything to do with that existing deficit"...
Says larry g without a hint of feeling silly for saying it...
"I already gave you the Pethokoukis regarding spending..."
ReplyDeletebut it was Grade A CRAP and you know it.
"That last link was just to show you how your boyfriend was spending money we don't have..."
right..more of the same propaganda.
"Its kind of like this link again demonstrating your boyfriend's inability to spend extorted tax dollars intelligently..."
yadda yadda
"Then larry g you must be under the impression that if you repeat a lie often enough it will morph into a fact with your repetitive use of the bogus politifact source..."
you mean adopt your approach?
no thanks...
"Seriously don't you ever consider thinking skeptically?"
sure.. that's the name of the game with the stuff you submit...
"the simple truth is that when Obama took office the already-existing budget was in deficit and had been in deficit for years... and Obama had not had anything to do with that existing deficit"...
Says larry g without a hint of feeling silly for saying it... "
it's verifiable...and true...unlike much of the guano you trade in...
Obama gets the blame for not advocating CUTTING the budget...but he did not create these budgets - they basically carried over from the Bush years.
ReplyDeleteBoth the GOP and Democrats are for big government and have little interest in budget cuts. Why would you think otherwise?
So you can't actually refute anything that has been pointed out to you about fy2009, you just plow through and ignore the facts like any Obama voting moron would do. Congrats, your hero would be proud of you.
ReplyDeleteLarry is a fool. But he is right when he says that Bush was a big spender who grew the size of government. Republicans tend to be very silent on his fiscal and budgetary sins and pretend that Obama is the only problem.
"Bush was a big spender who grew the size of government. Republicans tend to be very silent on his fiscal and budgetary sins..."...
ReplyDeleteWell doh!, didn't Bush give the game away even before he even wasted one dime of the taxpayers' money with his compassionate conservatism crapola?
BTW there were quite a few Republicans that were NOT silent about Bush's spending ideas...
"but it was Grade A CRAP and you know it"...
ReplyDeleteAhhh larry g you stepped on your johnson again going with that nutty Nutting piece but you should be used to that by now...
Try to learn from your mistakes, the endless train of them...
None the less you do have some entertainment valuel...
thanks, Juandos...we try to please
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWell doh!, didn't Bush give the game away even before he even wasted one dime of the taxpayers' money with his compassionate conservatism crapola?
BTW there were quite a few Republicans that were NOT silent about Bush's spending ideas...
Really? Other than Ron Paul who would those Conservatives be? It certainly wasn't Newt, who was pushing Bush for prescription drug laws that would make his clients rich. It was not Santorum, who was pushing the Bush agenda forward. Most of the Republicans in the Senate voted to give power to Bush to spend as much as he wished by attacking Iraq. Most of them wanted to spend a lot more on the military. Sorry but I see very few principled Republicans in Congress and even fewer principled Democrats.
" Sorry but I see very few principled Republicans in Congress and even fewer principled Democrats. "
ReplyDeletethat's correct.
But most Dems never claimed to be fiscal conservatives to start with and Republicans did.
that's the HELL of it.
But most Dems never claimed to be fiscal conservatives to start with and Republicans did.
ReplyDeleteI agree on this point. Most 'conservatives' in the US are not fiscal conservatives.