comment listing type:
Top New Videogames Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
comment listing type: Top New Videogames Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Having an opinion is above Obama's pay grade
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/wop.html
Now, according to the EIA report estimates, they were expecting oil prices to be below $50 a barrel by 2014. So far oil has peaked at what? Damn close to $150 a barrel? EIA estimates put oil in 2008 at $60 a barrel. That’s a big difference. Also, look at the wording they use to describe WHY the areas were not recommended for production at the time.
“Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOP AT THE REFERENCE CASE PRICES.”
What did that say to you? Of course I added the emphasis to point out the part I see as most important. What I see is that under the incorrect pricing assumptions used in the report, expanding would not have been profitable to oil companies. Don’t you think circumstances are a bit different now? It would sure as hell be profitable to expand with the prices per barrel as high as they are today. What else are people complaining about? Time to start production? Just because it takes time to get up and running does not mean you never begin the process. Also, untapped California reserves could be up and running within one year. This is all basic economics. Demand rises while we have done nothing to increase our own supply. Oil is a business (obviously). If given the opportunity they will expand and increase their production to fill demand. Begin drilling, stop punishing oil companies, release some reserves to cause massive losses to speculators, and watch prices fall. It is not complicated, and you're right about one thing. It is transparently obvious to people who bother to research it.
So to answer your questions, I saw the source, the data, and the conclusion. I don’t think it’s fabricated, just wrong.
Hilarious Interview - Why's it so hard being you?
Having an opinion is above Obama's pay grade
I do have very conservative values and beliefs. The same way you have very liberal values and beliefs. I don't bathe my mind in conservative circles for knowledge, I just see a conservative side in information I collect from any source. No, you aren't enlightening me or "getting through" on changing my position on health care or drilling. I don't share your views on what is necessary to improve our system. I do not want lots of government involvement. I read everything you have linked for me and I still do not see anything attracting me to Obama's proposals. I have also read comparisons here:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/08/18/obama-vs-mccain-health-care-policies/
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/571038?src=mp&spon=17&uac=54211HJ
I don't like what I see in other countries where health care falls under government control and I don't want to see it it here. Since our ideas of what is needed differ, I don't think we're going to be reaching the same conclusion after viewing someones policy ideas.
As for drilling, I think the core of the problem comes from our policies over many years. We just plain stopped expanding. No refineries were being built and no substantial drilling occured. Energy and environmental legislation varying from state to state requires all kinds of different gasoline blends to be refined from places that are already at capacity. We took a hit after Katrina when off-shore platforms were destroyed. While demand steadily increased over the years we did nothing to increase our own production. Now its too late to have any immediate action cause any change. Instead, congress keeps reinvestigating oil companies for price gouging and collusion while always reaching the same conclusions. They want to tax them more, institute windfall profits taxes, punish oil companies for prices. My opinion, which even Obama has now flipped to partially support (releasing reserves), is to being drilling in OCS, ANWR, and any other domestic reserves that can be tapped while allowing the production of more refineries to handle increased production. To fix prices temporarily, release some of the strategic reserves at intervals to punish speculators. By flooding the market with oil, prices will come down. The knowledge that a long term plan is in effect to increase production will also help in keep rising prices related to speculation down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/05/obama-backs-oil-reserve-release/
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/exxon-posts-record-3236-billion-tax.html
Oh, and since you posted polling for healthcare:
Opposition to drilling is coming from Democrats, and they oppose it at their own peril.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/poll-most-americans-want-offshore-drilling/
McCain Broke Pledge To Stay in 'Cone of Silence'
This just in. Photographic proof McCain was in the cone of silence:
http://thebruceblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/campaign-manager-releases-photo-to-prove-mccain-was-in-a-cone-of-silence/
For an old guy, he sure has some smooth girly hands.
Having an opinion is above Obama's pay grade
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9103CF93BA25751C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Another famous Democrat reverser would be LBJ. Running on a platform to pull out of Vietnam, he ended up sending more troops. The basic point is that campaign promises are garbage. You have to look beyond their words and see actions. How have they voted in the past and what do they really support? I've seen Obama's record and I don't like it. I am hard pressed to find anything I can agree with him on outside of a troop draw down. Some of his more moderate and reasonable sounding positions now are contrary to his political history. I think he has very socialist ideals and is very much in favor of a big government. McCain is also full of shit in his campaign platform. He knows conservatives don't want to vote for him and he has to pander to them for support. His voting history is just as contrary in many cases to the things he pretends to favor.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080225/ai_n24349357
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
Of course, we already know where Obama stands from his voting record. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of fear that he might accidentally grant protection to a fetus and threaten Roe vs Wade (his own words). He also said he would vote for it on the federal level if an identical bill was presented that protected Roe vs Wade. When the identical bill that he said he would vote for was presented at the federal level, Obama voted against it. CNN and CBN confronted him in an interview about this and Obama called it lies and deliberate misrepersentations of his position. You can see that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c
Shortly after the interview, Obama's campaign admitted that this was false and he did in fact vote against the identical bill. This allowed living, breathing babies that were now outside the womb as a result of failed abortions to be thrown into medical waste bins. Until this bill finally passed in 2005, babies were being murdered legally. I say murder in this case because you are not even talking about dividing cells at this point. You are talking about a baby that is now breathing on its own outside the womb. In the face of testimony from nurses and evidence presented, Obama still voted against the bill 3 times with different excuses in each instance. So, back to the question he dodged. Obama never answered when he believes a baby gets human rights.
http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
Having an opinion is above Obama's pay grade
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ethanol-Silly-Senator-Corn-is-for-Food
As for the health care plans, I suppose we'll see when he actually moves to implement it. I doubt he will get a real universal plan through without opposition. Also, if past attempts by Democrats are any indication, the things he proposes in a moderate tone are only for election time. The real policies and tax plans shine through once they are elected.
McCain Broke Pledge To Stay in 'Cone of Silence'
Obama's economic plan
The idea that tax cuts only benefit the rich is also false. Numbers from the Treasury Department have shown the effect cuts have had on low income earners from 2001 all the way to estimated values in 2011. They are substantial compared to the tax estimates when the cuts lapse. It most certainly does not push more people into a lower segment. Numbers from the tax foundation detailing income tax rates from 1913 all the way up to 2008 demonstrate that the idea of cuts only for the rich is a myth. Low income earners experienced substantial decreases. In fact, a family making less than 30K a year is saving more in taxes than a family making 100K a year.
As for the Clinton surplus, that is completely false. Just check the US Treasury. Cooking the books and claiming a surplus does not make it true. At the end of Clinton's last fiscal year in 2001, the deficit was $133.29 billion with a national debt of $5.8 trillion. However, there was a point when we came somewhat close to a balanced budget. Funny enough, it was Republicans that controlled congress at the time and pushed for the spending cuts that decreased our deficit. You just can't keep a low or non-existant deficit if you don't stick to decreased spending though.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/taxrelief_20012011_052708.pdf
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
US tourist killed after opening of 2008 Olympics
Obama's economic plan
Having an opinion is above Obama's pay grade
NetRunner, my choice never included McCain. I've never supported him and he is not even a true conservative. The closest to that I suppose was Ron Paul. A lot of Republicans probably won't even vote for McCain this election helping Obama to the win. In regards to the surge, Obama removed his previous statements of objection from his website. Changed his statements to acknowledge that violence had decreased. Used that to ramp up calls for troops to be moved to Afghanistan. Then finally said he would still be against the surge if he had the choice again just on principle of opposing Bush. I suppose "professing success" was not the way to put it. More like taking credit for success of things he has opposed and thought would fail.
Civil rights candidates have historically had a good crop of Republicans. It just seems that Republicans today are just as much for big government as the Democrats. Both sides of our craptacular two party system are becoming more and more alike in many ways. They pander and lie until they probably can't even remember what they stand for anymore. I also think that for all the anti-war blustering from the Democrats, they have no intention of taking any serious action. Obama will probably draw down troops, but not bring about a complete withdrawl. Hell, a big withdrawl is already being discussed by the oh so hated Bush administration as violence has substantially decreased, the Iraqi Army is mostly trained, and almost all of the 16 goals set for their government have been met.
As far as universal health care is concerned, I've been through the VA. If the government makes civilian health care anything like that we're boned. This is the way I see if from both my experience with a government controlled health care system, and hearing from relatives that have lived in both Canada and England. If you have the government take over the health care industry, you will cause a string of problems over time. The overall quality of doctors and care will start to decrease as it no longer pays to spend all that time and money on medical school. You will have incredibly long wait times for care. Right now you've got people coming in from Canada just so they can get treatment for something they'd be waiting endlessly for under a national healthcare system. Free hospitals crowd with people looking for attention over meaningless problems like stubbed toes and colds delaying people with real troubles. In a government controlled system, I was given improper vaccinations, put on waiting lists that were many months long, and could hardly ever see a doctor. A friend of mine can no longer move his right hand up and down after a doctor in a national healthcare system finally saw him for a broken arm a whole day after it had happend, then set it improperly. The short version is in my opinion that nationalized healthcare = turning hospitals into the DMV. If the system was instituted in a way that offers the option for people with no other choice, but leaves the private system in tact that might be better.
Also, I'd like to see which economists are calling for more government regulation of the market. Especially since this has always proven to cause problems in the past. Like what happened when they decided to promote corn based Ethanol, set production quotas, and subsidies. Whoops, we broke the market. *shrug*
Having an opinion is above Obama's pay grade
He has also caved on more than FISA. He retracted his initial statements about the surge being a useless idea and pretended to be a supporter. A Virginia democrat claimed the surges success was credited to Obama. Obama now professes the success of the surge in a complete 180 from his original statements that it would worsen the situation. When asked if he could go back to the moment he voiced his opposition to the surge, and use the information he has now to make his decision, Obama said that he would not change his opinion since being opposed to Bush was more important at the time than the outcome. He also reversed his position on gun control while cleaning up the mess from his clinging to God and guns statement about Pennsylvania.
I see Obama as a man with loads of good intentions that will serve to break this country even further. Bush went crazy with the Patriot Act and other expansions of government power in the name of saftey. Spending is getting out of control and the economy is slow. I think Obama will drive the nail in its coffin with full support of a Democratic ascendancy.
Why Homosexuality Should Be Banned
Boxer Knocked Out and Still Punching....Poor Guy
http://www.videosift.com/video/Knocked-Out-Boxer-Just-Keeps-On-Punching