If I wanted America to fail

[glennkoks]

hairball, the train that passed through Maine carrying crude from the Bakken came about due to a strange set of circumstances. Think of it as kind of a "Perfect Oil Storm". The North Dakota oil field has been much more prolific than anyone anticipated and has outgrown the limited infrastructure in place to handle the crude.

Advances in hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling have led to an explosion in shale drilling in the U.S. which has in turn led to a glut of natural gas on the market. NG is so cheap many rigs drilling for it have stopped and started drilling for the much more profitable oil. So in short order we have built oil levels at Cushing Oklahoma (the main hub) to levels not seen in the last 22 years.

For years and years oil flowed from the Gulf Coast oil fields to Cushing OK for distribution to plants in the North East. For the first time ever they reversed the flow at Cushing to carry oil down to Gulf Coast refineries. A sure sign that we are making strides towards energy independence.

[trbixler]

No problem we will use Spain for our industrial nations energy policy. Why Spain is one of the leading industrial world powers. It has created so much wealth why indeed they even found America. Oh that was a few years ago but....

Of course Germany followed their lead and so have we and well Germany well.. just do as I say children.

Of course I forgot to mention did you eat your arugula today? It is very green.

"Sunday Reflection: The truth about Germany and the 'clean energy economy'"
"President Obama recently came under fire for referring to "Polish death camps" in a prepared speech, reflecting a certain lack of awareness of matters European. This episode reminded us of something else, of greater concern to U.S. voters: Obama's speechwriters appear to also be unaware that the German media is available online. In English.

It is hard to explain otherwise how they continue sending Mr. Obama out to cite Germany's energy sector as a model for driving America's economic recovery.

Look back to when the candidate and then the new President Obama gave eight speeches touting Spain as the model for his "clean energy economy." As Spanish experts quickly pointed out, Spain's clean energy reality was in fact a disaster, even if this detail was ultimately lost amid a flood of news about the country's broader economic collapse.

This proved terribly embarrassing, and President Obama stopped giving that speech. He did not, however, stop pushing those policies that he claimed were an imitation of Spain's. Apparently assuming yet again that no one would look more closely, Obama now points to Germany as his success story.

Germany seemed a somewhat safe bet for the White House because it is widely perceived as the healthy man of Europe. And it is, in relative terms. But that is not the same as actually being healthy.

Germany's establishment media have chronicled that country's "green energy" collapse, and these stories are all available online, in English."

washingtonexaminer.com/article/686896

[sigurdur]

This article says it all in a nutshell:

thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/235251-the-dead-hand-of-uncertainty

[trbixler]

Jun 28, 2012 1:05:19 GMT sigurdur said:

This article says it all in a nutshell:

thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/235251-the-dead-hand-of-uncertainty

And they did not include the certainty of skyrocketing energy costs. As a business person try and plan for that. Maybe just cut more jobs to cut your carbon footprint.

[glennkoks]

sigurdur, it is sad that we are so devoid of leadership in Washington that nothing will get done until after the election. Our politicians fiddle while Rome burns.

[andor]

It just shows one:
Do they really care for you?
Off course not!!! They would even open up the borders just to win the seat!!!

[magellan]

Jun 28, 2012 2:20:30 GMT glennkoks said:

sigurdur, it is sad that we are so devoid of leadership in Washington that nothing will get done until after the election. Our politicians fiddle while Rome burns.

What is it you expect "will get done" after the election? Elections have consequences, and as we have just witnessed they affect all branches of government.

TaxMageddon is coming in January, so next year we can expect huge leaps in economic activity/growth, right?

Sigurdur, Reagan did not author the 'earned income tax credit' as it is known today. That would be Carter.

[trbixler]

Even the supremes were able to figure out a new tax when buried in sheep's clothes.

[justsomeguy]

This will be my only post in this string.

Reagan did greatly modify and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit: Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely-publicized Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). In fact after Carter started it in 1976, the 1986, 1990, 1993 and 2001 expansions were all under Repub administrations. See historical amounts here: www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=36&Topic2id=40&Topic3id=42

The "tax" the SC found is an essentially unenforceable tax without consequences in the law, it has no teeth.

The pipelines will all be approved after the election, whomever wins, as they are required for our energy independence. Also notable is the approval for drilling in the Arctic this administration just allowed: www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arctic-drilling-salazar-20120626,0,5503849.story

Finally, facts show that economic expansion is greater under Dem administrations than Repub administrations: 4.26% for dems, 2.74% for repubs. voices.yahoo.com/democratic-presidents-achieve-55-percent-higher-economic-6188660.html

Also see this which shows Dems are better under most economic indicators: currencythoughts.com/2011/08/08/an-updated-look-at-how-the-u-s-economy-performed-under-democratic-and-republican-presidencies/

So I guess an economic fact based analysis leads one to vote Democratic.

On other points, the Global Warming scare is fading, and most folks do not buy it. Obama's own website only mentions it under the new fuel economy standards, at least on his "Energy and Environment" page. No more talk of cap and trade. www.barackobama.com/record/environment/

In fact, U.S. carbon dioxide output is dropping fast, without cap and trade or economic rules: www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/04/14/biggest-drop-in-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

All is well, we do need to work on our education and do away with the Bush tax cuts (if the Bush tax cuts had not been enacted, and/or the wars he fought were paid for, we would be fine today). Bush outspent Obama 5 to 1: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

Although a fact based analysis leads one to conclusions that are different from expectations, we should use facts, right?

[glennkoks]

You can place on both parties for our fiscal issues. The Simpson-Bowles plan lined out just exactly what needed to be done to right our ship fiscally and both parties pretty much trashed it.

The Democrats won't sacrifice entitlements, the Republicans wont budge on tax increases or military cuts and the madness continues...

[magellan]

Jul 1, 2012 18:22:55 GMT glennkoks said:

You can place on both parties for our fiscal issues. The Simpson-Bowles plan lined out just exactly what needed to be done to right our ship fiscally and both parties pretty much trashed it.

The Democrats won't sacrifice entitlements, the Republicans wont budge on tax increases or military cuts and the madness continues...

Thus far, nobody will sacrifice entitlements because people are used to getting their goodies from the government, so we can expect at some point when it all comes crashing down there will be rioting in the streets like what is occurring in Europe. That's the problem with Socialism; at some point you run out of other people's money.

Simpson-Bowles would not fix a thing. Look at the historic net tax revenue since WWII: 18% average. Raising it to over 20% will hurt the economy, not help it, and the tax revenue will drop back to 18% and below again, and revenues will drop.


Somehow because Simpson is a R is supposed to mean what? And Bowles is a D, and that means what? Nothing.

If you support Ron Paul, he does not support Simpson-Bowles, but I suspect many who claim will non-vote for Ron Paul don't even know what the man is about. Simpson-Bowles has all the flowery smells to make the uninformed believe it will "fix" something because it is "bi-partisan". Ha! It is a huge tax increase which is the last thing the economy can stand now.

The problem is, always has been and always will be spending and the size and scope of government. Simson-Bowles offers nothing to address the unfunded liabilities that will be the death knell of the U.S. The government already takes 35% of GDP. How much more do you want to give these a-holes?

All the data for everyone to look up is available here:
www.usgovernmentspending.com/
www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/

If you want to have a discussion, fine. But so far all you've done is offer platitudes and unsupported statements concerning taxes. The bottom 50% pay little or nothing, but even if they paid a 10% minimum tax it would amount to diddly squat. We Americans are already taxed too much. Every dollar the government takes out of the private sector is money not used to grow the economy. Government has no money. Government does not create jobs. Government only sucks the life blood from the people who create wealth, meaning those that make the economy work. Taking more will not solve a thing.

A few examples:



I've got the numbers. If you wish to discuss, show the numbers. Otherwise, it is all talk and no different than AGW windbags linking every weather event to CO2.

Justsomeguy. Your post isn't even worth replying to. Anyone who thinks Bush outspent Obama 5:1 is a complete idiot. Above are the links to the data. Prove your point with numbers.

So, for starters, explain this graph. Let's see, the Bush tax cuts resulted in marginal rate taxes being LOWERED, but revenues went UP. Odd how that works isn't it? The problem again, is SPENDING, not low taxes.

[magellan]

Those who remember Phil Donahue, the man is an unabashed Progressive, very argumentative, yet no matter how he tried to trip up Milton Friedman, he failed.
I read his book discussed in this video.

[glennkoks]

magellan, I don't support any candidate on 100% of the issues. If one thing is clear it is that tax cuts are not the magic pixie dust the Neocon's and their Tea Party ilk make them out to be. The Bush tax cuts during a time of two wars was the height of fiscal irresponsibility and it stimulated the economy so well we fell into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Simpson-Bowles only affirms what anyone with 1/2 a brain already knows. We have to cut spending. In particularly spending on the military and entitlements. So we are in rare agreement on that topic. However slashing spending too sharply AKA austerity has shown some negative economic side effects on growth in Europe. In addition we tried premature sharp spending cuts and a move towards austerity in 1937 to disastrous results in what came to be known as the Recession of 1937 or "Roosevelts Recession".

Spending cuts in combination with modest tax increases back to Reagan era levels slowly over time is clearly the prudent coarse of action. I do not share your "gloom and doom" economic forecasts. In 1945 our debt to GDP ratio was 120%, currently we are around 100%. So we have been here before. But it is clear that we cannot tax cut our way out of this mess.

[glennkoks]

laffer curve

Attachments:

[glennkoks]

laffer curve

Attachments: