State of Obama's Economy

[Adam]

Y'know, the more I read about this pipeline story, the more perplexed I am about why Obama would sit on it. Everyone from both sides of the aisle see it as a net positive for jobs and denting oil dependency. It's such an obvious no brainer that even the idea that he's doing iy for the "green" vote makes no sense. The tree-huggers don't have enough votes to make him do something so stupid. There has to be something else.

 

Then I read a comment in that article earlier that connected some dots for me: Brazil. Remember after the BP spill, Obama shut down everything. Immediately, Immelt and GE bought into the Brazilian oil market, followed immediately by a visit from Obama stating that we plan to be Brazil's biggest customer. So while the tree-hugger vote looks like the reason Obama is sitting on this. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to figure out how GE donations to the 2012 campaign play a much larger role. Obama desperately needs Immelt's money. There are only so many people willing to kick over three bucks to have dinner with Joe Biden.

Now I will openly admit that I don't know much about the logistics of the pipeline. From a simpleton's (I will refrain from saying idiot, out of respect to DC Tom's trademark), standpoint- wouldn't it make more sense to build a refinery up north instead of a pipeline that will span the width of the country? It may create a few less jobs, but the jobs are temporary to begin with.

[DC Tom]

Now I will openly admit that I don't know much about the logistics of the pipeline. From a simpleton's (I will refrain from saying idiot, out of respect to DC Tom's trademark), standpoint- wouldn't it make more sense to build a refinery up north instead of a pipeline that will span the width of the country? It may create a few less jobs, but the jobs are temporary to begin with.

 

Three reasons the pipeline's easier:

1) The refinery capacity already exists.

2) If you build a refinery up north, you still have to ship the final product. Using land transportation, which is expensive. Or...with a pipeline.

3) Refining isn't just "oil in, useful stuff out". It's "oil and other chemicals in, useful stuff out." So building the refinery up north, you'd have to ship the fractions to the field for blending, refine the oil and distill the products, then ship the final products back. Much easier just to pipe the oil to where the capacity and fractions already are.

[GG]

Now I will openly admit that I don't know much about the logistics of the pipeline. From a simpleton's (I will refrain from saying idiot, out of respect to DC Tom's trademark), standpoint- wouldn't it make more sense to build a refinery up north instead of a pipeline that will span the width of the country? It may create a few less jobs, but the jobs are temporary to begin with.

 

Among the big problems with the gasoline "crisis" three years ago was the little talked about fact that most of the refining capacity is still in the Gulf, as getting a permit for a new refinery is nearly as easy as building a nuclear plant. It's far easier to build transcontinental gas & oil pipelines than to build a new refinery.

[Magox]

Y'know, the more I read about this pipeline story, the more perplexed I am about why Obama would sit on it. Everyone from both sides of the aisle see it as a net positive for jobs and denting oil dependency. It's such an obvious no brainer that even the idea that he's doing iy for the "green" vote makes no sense. The tree-huggers don't have enough votes to make him do something so stupid. There has to be something else.

 

Then I read a comment in that article earlier that connected some dots for me: Brazil. Remember after the BP spill, Obama shut down everything. Immediately, Immelt and GE bought into the Brazilian oil market, followed immediately by a visit from Obama stating that we plan to be Brazil's biggest customer. So while the tree-hugger vote looks like the reason Obama is sitting on this. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to figure out how GE donations to the 2012 campaign play a much larger role. Obama desperately needs Immelt's money. There are only so many people willing to kick over three bucks to have dinner with Joe Biden.

 

It is pretty crazy, and from my perspective a complete loser. However, to my understanding, the political calculation is that the likely hood of Union voters sitting out vs Environuts is much less likely and that behind the Enviro's there is substantial amounts of money that has sat on the sidelines.

 

I still dont think it makes sense not just for the country but from a political POV as well.

 

 

Baffling to me.

[B-Man]

Y'know, the more I read about this pipeline story, the more perplexed I am about why Obama would sit on it. Everyone from both sides of the aisle see it as a net positive for jobs and denting oil dependency. It's such an obvious no brainer that even the idea that he's doing iy for the "green" vote makes no sense. The tree-huggers don't have enough votes to make him do something so stupid. There has to be something else.

 

Then I read a comment in that article earlier that connected some dots for me: Brazil. Remember after the BP spill, Obama shut down everything. Immediately, Immelt and GE bought into the Brazilian oil market, followed immediately by a visit from Obama stating that we plan to be Brazil's biggest customer. So while the tree-hugger vote looks like the reason Obama is sitting on this. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to figure out how GE donations to the 2012 campaign play a much larger role. Obama desperately needs Immelt's money. There are only so many people willing to kick over three bucks to have dinner with Joe Biden.

 

 

 

Perhaps, this enters into it also.

 

North Dakota Stuck Using More-Costly Railroads to Move Oil

 

 

And who has a big stake in Burlington Northern? A guy in Omaha named Buffett.

 

And by having TransCanada tie its Keystone XI to the border crossing approval you can’t get a segmented line from Montana to Port Arthur, TX that the Bakken field could tie into. That is the concept. A collector system named the BakkenLink runs down to Montana from ND and ties into Keystone XI (known as MarketLink). A twofer you might say.

 

So, in a way it is a Win-Win for Obama – He wins his Green base and his Crony Capitalism base. Pretty clever, eh?

 

 

.

[Magox]

 

 

So, in a way it is a Win-Win for Obama – He wins his Green base and his Crony Capitalism base. Pretty clever, eh?

 

 

.

No

[Juror#8]

What a change from when I was last here 12 hours ago. Was that juror weirdo given a warning or something?

 

Warned for what? Maybe they were warned. Ask and ye shall see....weirdo.

 

Oil pipeline...horrible political calculation. Union folks hate it. They're more likely to sit than the enviros because the "lesser-of-two-evils" consideration.

 

Jobs - I think 5500-8000 is what most are predicting. Not the 20,000 that the Canadians are suggesting, but meaningful nonetheless.

 

Environment - probably disastrous...if you're in to that kind of thing. A couple of whistle-blowers are on record as saying that internal docs suggest an acknowledgment of deleterious environmental impact.

 

150% of what? - amount over investment. (To DCTom)

Edited January 23, 2012 by Juror#8

[B-Man]

[

The truly dismal state of the union

By Joseph Curl

 

There is one person one American among the 300 million of us who is not to blame for the state of the union. Everyone else, each of you, in some small or large way, bears some share of the blame, but not this guy. Not one little bit.

 

This guy is Barack Obama. He is not the least bit to blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy. George W. Bush is, for sure, and that evil Dick Cheney, oh, no doubt. House Speaker John A. Boehner evil, too is, of course, to blame. But guess what? So is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and every Democrat in the House and Senate.

 

Now, President Truman made it very clear: The buck stops with him. No passing the buck for that guy. But Mr. Obama blames everyone but himself. Mr. Bush, he says, left the nation in a ditch, a deep ditch, and hes been digging out since he took office. And Congress? Those guys are just plain awful, he says. So mean. Wah, they wont do anything I want done! Mr. Obama feels so sure about it that hes basing his re-election campaign on bashing Capitol Hill.

 

But with the president delivering his State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday night, lets pause here to take as hard look at the real state of America, by the numbers, using only cold, hard facts.

 

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent at least thats the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.

 

In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 12 years ago and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered low paying, up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.

 

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, its $3.39 thats a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if youre keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office a 20 percent increase.)

 

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.

 

Some 48 percent of all Americans 146.4 million are considered by the Census Bureau either as low-income or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.

 

Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent. Total spending has more than doubled in just four years to a record high of $75 billion. In 2011, more than 46 million people about one in seven Americans got food stamps. Thats 14 million more than when Mr. Obama took office.

 

Median household income has dropped nearly 7 percent in the last six years, taking inflation into account. Whats more, nearly 20 percent of males age 25 to 34 now live with their parents.

 

Low- and middle-income Americans 65 and older now hold more than $10,000 in credit card debt, up 26 percent since 2005. The average age of the American car is 10 years; in 1990, it was 6.5 years old (by the way, in 1985, Americans bought 11 million cars; in 2009, less than half that, 5.4 million).

 

On the macro side, Americas annual budget has jumped to $3.8 trillion and yet the United States brings in only about $2.1 trillion in revenue. The U.S. trade deficit for 2011 was $558 billion. Americas total public debt stands at $15.23 trillion; in January 2009, the debt was $10.62 trillion. Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in just one term more debt than was amassed by all presidents from Washington through Bill Clinton combined. The debt is rising by $4.2 billion every day $175 million per hour, nearly $3 million per minute.

 

So, America, that is the State of Your Union. But remember, Mr. Obama had not one thing to do with it. So dont blame him when you go to the polls. Blame everyone else, especially yourself.

 

 

 

Washington Times

Edited January 23, 2012 by B-Man

[B-Man]

Senate Democrats’ 1,000 Days of Debt and Disappointment

By Jeff Sessions & Paul Ryan

January 23, 2012

 

 

Tomorrow will mark a sad milestone in the history of the United States Senate: the 1,000th day since Senate Democrats last offered a budget plan to the American people. Senate Democrats abandoned their official duty to prioritize Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and tackle our nation’s most pressing economic challenges — dealing a painful blow to fiscal progress that may be felt for some time.

 

This contrasts sharply with the record of the House Republicans. Last spring, the new House Majority publicly produced a budget plan before the nation, brought it forward in committee, and passed it on the floor. The budget’s principled solutions honestly confront our nation’s most difficult challenges, putting the budget on a path to balance and the country on a path to prosperity.

 

The president and his party’s leaders have yet to detail a credible budget plan to prevent the fiscal crisis that awaits us should we continue down the current path to debt, doubt, and decline. Such a crisis would threaten the economic security, health security, and retirement security of every American. If the president wishes to begin a genuine dialogue with the American people in tomorrow’s State of the Union address, then he must hold his own party accountable for its dogged refusal to produce a plan to prevent this crisis and lift this cloud of uncertainty from the economy. The president must also deliver what he has so far refused: serious reforms to change our debt course and prevent fiscal disaster.

 

We remain disappointed in the Senate Democrats’ decision to give up on an essential responsibility of governing, and we sincerely hope 2012 will not mark the third consecutive year that Senate Democrats skip the budget process altogether. Nor will it be credible or acceptable for them to present a phony budget plan that pretends to make changes but in reality merely keeps spending on its current trajectory. Real reforms, real spending control, and a real change in the status quo are the minimum obligations of elected leaders in these times of uncertainty and distress. Where the president and his party have failed to confront the greatest challenges of our time, Republicans in the House and Senate will continue to work for solutions to ensure that government can keep its promises, take less from hardworking families and businesses, and create the conditions for economic growth and prosperity.

 

— U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama serves as the ranking Republican of the Senate Budget Committee. U.S. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

 

.NRO

[3rdnlng]

Warned for what? Maybe they were warned. Ask and ye shall see....weirdo.

 

Oil pipeline...horrible political calculation. Union folks hate it. They're more likely to sit than the enviros because the "lesser-of-two-evils" consideration.

 

Jobs - I think 5500-8000 is what most are predicting. Not the 20,000 that the Canadians are suggesting, but meaningful nonetheless.

 

Environment - probably disastrous...if you're in to that kind of thing. A couple of whistle-blowers are on record as saying that internal docs suggest an acknowledgment of deleterious environmental impact.

 

150% of what? - amount over investment. (To DCTom)

 

 

Link?

[Juror#8]

Link?

 

 

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-safe/article_4b713d36-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html

 

"Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one."

 

I thought that there was a second guy...and there may well be. I was watching CNN a few nights ago and there was a gentleman discussing the pipeline. I was working on a project simulataneously though and didn't catch the name.

[IDBillzFan]

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-safe/article_4b713d36-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html

 

"Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one."

 

I thought that there was a second guy...and there may well be. I was watching CNN a few nights ago and there was a gentleman discussing the pipeline. I was working on a project simulataneously though and didn't catch the name.

He doesn't write that building the pipleline would have a"deleterious environmental impact," but that it would have such an impact if it is built by his former company. That's not an argument to not build the pipleline, but rather an argument not to let his former employer build it.

[3rdnlng]

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-safe/article_4b713d36-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html

 

"Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one."

 

I thought that there was a second guy...and there may well be. I was watching CNN a few nights ago and there was a gentleman discussing the pipeline. I was working on a project simulataneously though and didn't catch the name.

 

So, I take it you are against all pipeline construction?

[Juror#8]

He doesn't write that building the pipleline would have a"deleterious environmental impact," but that it would have such an impact if it is built by his former company. That's not an argument to not build the pipleline, but rather an argument not to let his former employer build it.

 

Exactly - he is not saying that building a pipeline, ipso facto, will have deleterious environmental consequences. He is saying that the pipeline, as currently envisioned and proposed, would have such an adverse impact.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

Exactly - he is not saying that building a pipeline, ipso facto, will have deleterious environmental consequences. He is saying that the pipeline, as currently envisioned and proposed, would have such an adverse impact.

 

 

No, he is saying that there was some shoddy construction already. Simple as that.

[IDBillzFan]

Exactly - he is not saying that building a pipeline, ipso facto, will have a deleterious environmental consequence. He is saying that the pipeline, as currently envisioned and proposed, would have such an adverse impact.

If by "as currently envisioned and proposed" you mean " be built by his former employer," then yes, you may be right. But leaders lead by eliminating barriers. If Obama's barrier is specifically "who" is building the pipeline, address it. Unfortunately, he's not a leader. He's just a guy in over his head who, predictably, puts off the elimination of barriers because it's somehow easier than making a decision.

 

Maybe he'll explain it in more detail in tonight's speech.

[Juror#8]

So, I take it you are against all pipeline construction?

 

No. I'm actually for the pipeline construction - even in this instance. I'd be for TransCanada building it if there was an adherence to environmental SLAs in whatever statement of work that they have with the government.

 

They shouldn't be able to pollute carte blanche. But we need more efficient mobilization. "Answer form" is somewhere in between.

 

As it stands now, the WH has it wrong and so does the Right.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

If by "as currently envisioned and proposed" you mean " be built by his former employer," then yes, you may be right. But leaders lead by eliminating barriers. If Obama's barrier is specifically "who" is building the pipeline, address it. Unfortunately, he's not a leader. He's just a guy in over his head who, predictably, puts off the elimination of barriers because it's somehow easier than making a decision.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Maybe he'll explain it in more detail in tonight's speech.

 

He won't. But he'll make a lot of people clap and a lot of people boo. That dichotomy, like Bush, but unlike Clinton and Bush I, will define his presidency.