Palin was right and Obama was lying

[sjt18]

The Myth Of Scarce Oil

Undeniably credible source actually did the research that the rest of the MSM refused to do. Instead, they accepted Obama and the left's lie that the US does not have the oil to become independent. They mocked Palin's "Drill here, drill now" and called her claims of vast domestic oil reserves "fantasy" or worse.

I wonder if we will see this news plastered all over the MSM? I wonder if they'll ever stop with the bias and hammer Obama for gas prices the way they did Bush? Will they report on the economy like they did when Bush was being demonized and personally destroyed by the media?

The only thing GWB did that was "conservative" was cut taxes. Not surprisingly that's about the only thing he did that worked well in domestic/economic policy. But the economy has been much worse for all of Obama's term as it was for all but perhaps about 15 months under Bush. Yet the press continues to carry his "blame Bush" message for him.

LG you will be relieved that I am not holding my breath waiting for news supportive of conservatives and detrimental to progressives to get equal treatment.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What was the point of your thread? I think anybody with half a brain knows that we have oil reserves which we are not utilizing. I am not sure anybody really denies that. Most people argue over whether or how we should utilize those reserves.

 

[lawgator1]

My understanding is that we reduced our dependence on foreign oil more under Obama than Bush. And, that the issue is also more about refining capacity right now than barrels.

Palin, I am sure, thinks gas comes right out if the ground, labeled unleaded and premium.

 

[Gramps]

The only thing GWB did that was "conservative" was cut taxes. Not surprisingly that's about the only thing he did that worked well in domestic/economic policy. But the economy has been much worse for all of Obama's term as it was for all but perhaps about 15 months under Bush. Yet the press continues to carry his "blame Bush" message for him.

How did cutting taxes, signing the medicare prescription drug bill without it being paid for, fighting 2 wars without them being paid for "worked well in domestic/economic policy"?

 

[RespectTradition]

How did cutting taxes, signing the medicare prescription drug bill without it being paid for, fighting 2 wars without them being paid for "worked well in domestic/economic policy"?

Without Ws tax cuts, we would be in even worse shape.

 

[possumslayer]

250 Year supply,in a hundred we want even need it....technology is advancing at an alarming rate,thanks to business owners and inventors not the socialist government .
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Gramps]

Without Ws tax cuts, we would be in even worse shape.

I think all the Bush tax cuts accomplished was increasing the deficit.

Increasing expenses and cutting revenue
equals a deficit.

We have to pay for the medicare drug bill and the wars now with interest.

 

[gsvol]

Liberal thinking.

Palin was right.
+ Obama lied.
-----------
= Bush's fault.

I can just imagine the inside of the head of a liberal.

Picture, hampster in a squirrel cage but the hamster's dead.

 

[sjt18]

What was the point of your thread? I think anybody with half a brain knows that we have oil reserves which we are not utilizing. I am not sure anybody really denies that. Most people argue over whether or how we should utilize those reserves.

Read the article. Obama and the left on multiple occasions has denied the existence of those reserves. And while BO seems to have ALOT of problems with US companies who are tightly regulated drilling for oil in various places... he supports or at least does not oppose countries like Brazil and China doing it.

Here's how we should "use" those resources: We should drill here and end our dependence on foreign oil. The resulting broadening of the tax base should be used to retire our debt, reform/simplify our tax code, and support research into bio-fuels and other clean technologies that will likely take the next 50 to 100 years to develop and broadly implement.

 

[sjt18]

My understanding is that we reduced our dependence on foreign oil more under Obama than Bush.

Mainly because it takes several years for approved drilling sites to come on line. You are giving credit to Obama for decisions made by the Bush Admin. The pain of the current Obama decisions will largely be felt in 2-5 years when those wells would have started producing.

And, that the issue is also more about refining capacity right now than barrels.

Yes. Refineries are HUGE issue. The left and Democratic party particularly have blocked new refinery construction for almost 40 years now even though a new facility with the latest technology would produce cleaner burning fuels with less pollution. The environmental retrofits imposed on the old refineries have resulted in inefficiciencies and direct costs that have to be passed on.

IIRC, Obama has encouraged other countries to build refineries and ship gasoline to us.

Palin, I am sure, thinks gas comes right out if the ground, labeled unleaded and premium.

I am quite sure she knows a great deal more about it than you do. This kind of statement is why many of us think liberals are extraordinarily ignorant and driven by emotion and hate rather than any kind of rational thought.

 

[sjt18]

How did cutting taxes, signing the medicare prescription drug bill without it being paid for, fighting 2 wars without them being paid for "worked well in domestic/economic policy"?

Like I said, about the only conservative thing he did was cut taxes. The net tax receipts are available on line so you can look for yourself. The Bush tax cuts like those of JFK and Reagan before him pulled the economy quickly out of recession and resulted in HIGHER tax receipts. The problem is not nor has it ever been taxes being too low. The problem is spending too much.

By comparison, the billions or trillions spent on stimulus pkgs and bail outs have contributed to an anemic recovery at the very best and have probably inhibited recovery. They have certainly misdirected capital resources to inefficient, unproductive, or counter productive enterprises instead of wealth generators.

 

[sjt18]

I think all the Bush tax cuts accomplished was increasing the deficit.

So... you are saying that the FACT that the tax cuts actually increased revenue made the deficits go up? So you are saying that you'd rather have 2X$100 than 5X$50?

That IS the basic idea of supply side tax cuts. You get a lower percentage of a larger number. It has been tried in a major way three times. It has worked as predicted each time.

Increasing expenses and cutting revenue
equals a deficit.

You got the first part right and in fact increasing expenses HARMS the tax base itself by redirecting resources from wealth producing activities to wealth consuming activities.

We have to pay for the medicare drug bill and the wars now with interest.

The war was based on faulty information. The whole idea of medicare needs to be reworked and preferrably sent back to the states. The Feds do not have a constitutional authority for it.

 

[sjt18]

I am always looking for different analogies to help people understand why the "demand" side Keynesian model does not work while the supply side model does work.

I'll try again...

Imagine two stores. The first store is run by Barry who believes as long as his shelves are stocked people will come in to buy regardless of the price. His answer to low customer activity and thus profit is to spend more on inventory because that will put someone to work who will then be his customer. Not surprisingly... it does not work. He only goes deeper in debt.

The second store is run by Ronnie. Ronnie believes you have to find your price equillibrium that optimizes the balance between customers and margin. His answer to low profit due to customer activity is to lower prices. Even though he's cut his margin, customers pour in to buy. He then has to purchase more product putting more people to work and creating real momentum.

The only thing Ronnie could do better is to stop offering unneeded products and make his operation more efficient.

 

[Gramps]

The war was based on faulty information. The whole idea of medicare needs to be reworked and preferrably sent back to the states. The Feds do not have a constitutional authority for it.

It is now common knowledge that we went to war on faulty information. That does not change the fact that we have been in 2 wars and without paying for them.

The medicare program may need to go back to the states, that does not change the fact that the Feds passed it without it being paid for.

The wars and the medicare programs not being paid for ran up our deficit.

Again I will say you cannot cut revenue and increase expenses. That is common sense.

I realize there are more factors involved that caused the problem, but cutting taxes, two wars and the medicare bill did contribute to the problem.

 

[sjt18]

Cutting taxes DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to the problem. It resulted in higher net revenues to the federal gov't AND to state gov'ts... even those who held their line on taxes. The facts are available on line Gramps. Revenues went UP not down after the tax cuts. Spending simply outstripped the increased revenue. Without the tax cuts, it would have been much worse... like what we are seeing with Obama.

There IS a maximum equillibrium net tax rate. The federal portion is probably in the neighborhood of 15-18%. Spending MUST be held to around that percentage of GDP or else we are going to have deficits regardless of whether you increase taxes or not.

The very simple lesson of history is that gov't that is too big cannot be sustained. Ours is about 25% too big.

 

[Gramps]

Cutting taxes DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to the problem. It resulted in higher net revenues to the federal gov't AND to state gov'ts... even those who held their line on taxes. The facts are available on line Gramps. Revenues went UP not down after the tax cuts. Spending simply outstripped the increased revenue. Without the tax cuts, it would have been much worse... like what we are seeing with Obama.

There IS a maximum equillibrium net tax rate. The federal portion is probably in the neighborhood of 15-18%. Spending MUST be held to around that percentage of GDP or else we are going to have deficits regardless of whether you increase taxes or not.

The very simple lesson of history is that gov't that is too big cannot be sustained. Ours is about 25% too big.

I agree 100% with the bolded part.

I am not for the Keynesian model. I am for a flat tax that includes everyone paying taxes,

We have been in wars over 10 years without them being paid for. The medicare drug bill is a large entitlement program that was implemented without being paid for.

One can argue pro or con concerning the Bush tax cuts.
They may have helped in the short term, however, the economy was toast and everyone knew it in the fall of 2008.

Obama has continued adding to the debt. This is not a Dem or GOP problem. This is a Washington problem with both sides at fault.


This below charts show the US defecit has been growing out of control since the early 1980's.

The below chart show the Bush tax credit helped short term, then the bottom fell out .

 

[PKT_VOL]

Read the article. Obama and the left on multiple occasions has denied the existence of those reserves. And while BO seems to have ALOT of problems with US companies who are tightly regulated drilling for oil in various places... he supports or at least does not oppose countries like Brazil and China doing it.

Give credit where credit is due. He is right about currently not being able to drill our way out of high gas prices. The article sights possible reserves with no mention of what it will take to get it out of the ground in an environmentally and economically feasible way. Hell, the Rocky Mountains are the ultimate oil jackpot if we were to develop technologies able of extracting the oil.

Increasing our refining capabilities and kissing Canada's ass is the best short and medium term solution for gas prices.

Here's how we should "use" those resources: We should drill here and end our dependence on foreign oil. The resulting broadening of the tax base should be used to retire our debt, reform/simplify our tax code, and support research into bio-fuels and other clean technologies that will likely take the next 50 to 100 years to develop and broadly implement.

Sustained high gas prices will do this country a world of good in the long term. Problem is, our culture fosters an obsession for the right now. This attitude, in its essence, is the reason for a multitude of our national problems (gas prices, national debt, etc).

 

[Coach Grizz]

Hmmmmm I wonder where she has been hiding????? Lol I think it has something to do with a black basketball player from Michigan.... Just sayin lol

 

[superdave1984]

Meh, the powers that be want the world to deplete the middle east of it's oil, while sparing the US it's supply. Then the US will be the oil barons of the world.

 

[VOLatile]

My understanding that we don't have the facilities to refine the oil to match our demand. Using our reserves will not help short term.

 

[sjt18]

Give credit where credit is due. He is right about currently not being able to drill our way out of high gas prices. The article sights possible reserves with no mention of what it will take to get it out of the ground in an environmentally and economically feasible way. Hell, the Rocky Mountains are the ultimate oil jackpot if we were to develop technologies able of extracting the oil.

Technically recoverable literally means we have the technology and KNOW what it will cost.

There is no credit to be given whatsoever. He is screwing the future because it won't help right now and you think he should get credit? He's throwing money we don't have to his financial supporters in the "alternative energy" business even though their technologies are KNOWN to not be economically viable for the level of application BO wants them to be.

Here's a FACT for you that you may not know. Solar with existing technology is a house of straw. I had a leading installer in my region bid a system that would effectively cover 10% of our needs at my plant. The real costs were somewhere around $600K... an ROI of 167 years. BUT due to subsidies and rebates imposed on the traditional source power company... I could get the whole system for $30K. SOMEONE is paying the difference... and that SOMEONE is in part YOU through taxes and higher electric bills.

The whole thing is being propped up. This IS the face of corporate welfare.

Increasing our refining capabilities and kissing Canada's ass is the best short and medium term solution for gas prices.

No. Refineries also take years to build. Thanks mostly to the left... there are no good short term solutions.

The mid and long term solutions are to drill and build our own refineries then use increased tax revenues from this increased domestic wealth creation to fund the research of real long term solutions. Those are not likely to come from solar or wind. Geothermal, biofuels, tidal, and nuclear are the most promising for the amount of power we will need to replace fossil fuels.

Sustained high gas prices will do this country a world of good in the long term. Problem is, our culture fosters an obsession for the right now. This attitude, in its essence, is the reason for a multitude of our national problems (gas prices, national debt, etc).

No they won't. How condescending and pompous of you to say that the people should just eat cake....

What "good" will they do? Force people to accept a lower standard of living? Check. Force people to live where they do not want to live? Check. Force people to subordinate what they want to what people like you want for them? Check.

Don't try to tell me much less everyone else what is good for us in the short or long term. We are plenty smart enough to do that for ourselves thanks.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Technically recoverable literally means we have the technology and KNOW what it will cost.

My statement:

The article sights possible reserves with no mention of what it will take to get it out of the ground in an environmentally and economically feasible way.

From the USGS (wording from wiki but I fact checked it):

The United States Geological Survey uses the terms technically and economically recoverable resources when making its petroleum resource assessments. Technically recoverable resources represent that proportion of assessed in-place petroleum that may be recoverable using current recovery technology, without regard to cost. Economically recoverable resources are technically recoverable petroleum for which the costs of discovery, development, production, and transport, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given market price.

Eat crow.

There is no credit to be given whatsoever. He is screwing the future because it won't help right now and you think he should get credit?

Did you mean to say this the way it is worded? I hope not.

He might screw up the future, but its not because his policies are currently failing to lower energy prices to your satisfaction.

I am not defending his overall energy policy. But he is correct in saying that we cannot drill ourselves out of high gas prices in the short term.

Here's a FACT for you that you may not know. Solar with existing technology is a house of straw. I had a leading installer in my region bid a system that would effectively cover 10% of our needs at my plant. The real costs were somewhere around $600K... an ROI of 167 years. BUT due to subsidies and rebates imposed on the traditional source power company... I could get the whole system for $30K. SOMEONE is paying the difference... and that SOMEONE is in part YOU through taxes and higher electric bills.

Not relevant to our discussion.

No. Refineries also take years to build. Thanks mostly to the left... there are no good short term solutions.

Tomato, tomato.

The mid and long term solutions are to drill and build our own refineries then use increased tax revenues from this increased domestic wealth creation to fund the research of real long term solutions. Those are not likely to come from solar or wind. Geothermal, biofuels, tidal, and nuclear are the most promising for the amount of power we will need to replace fossil fuels.

Biofuels will never be the answer. Geothermal and tidal are both theoretically viable. Don't dismiss solar and wind power. They will both be viable with increasing technological innovations.

No they won't. How condescending and pompous of you to say that the people should just eat cake....

What "good" will they do? Force people to accept a lower standard of living? Check. Force people to live where they do not want to live? Check. Force people to subordinate what they want to what people like you want for them? Check.

Don't try to tell me much less everyone else what is good for us in the short or long term. We are plenty smart enough to do that for ourselves thanks.

You illustrate my point perfectly. You promote the short term hardships in lieu of advancing toward a long term solution. The problem with your argument is that it was made as early as the 70's. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is the textbook definition of insanity.

Think of this quote in economic terms and you will might see the light.

…and yet the true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention. ~ Plato (The Republic, Book II)

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Over/Under on how many times sjt uses "the left" in this thread?

Sure would be nice to solve the energy problem without using our reserves.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Over/Under on how many times sjt uses "the left" in this thread?

Sure would be nice to solve the energy problem without using our reserves.

what energy problem? Last time I checked my 500 kw spotlight was still working.

 

[gsvol]

Over/Under on how many times sjt uses "the left" in this thread?

Sure would be nice to solve the energy problem without using our reserves.

What reserves are you talking about leftie?

If you are talking about using the strategic reserve then that isn't going to be more than a bandaid, temporary solution.

If you are talking about reserves such as the NPR (national petroleum reserves) which was set aside in 1923 but has never had the first drill stuck into it then that's a different story.

We should have been recovering oil from that valuable Alaskan north slope field for a long time now rather than importing the high sulphur crude we buy from Saudi Arabia!

The current administration is creating more problems than it is solving to satisfy it's left wing agenda.