Winning The Future!

[1KielsonDrive]

Conservative nothing. He's got to out-crazy a whole lot of crazy would-be candidates.

That's the key to the republicrat and tea parties - OUT-CRAZY. Who can and will OUT-CRAZY the others? BTW, for you neophytes, there's NO such thing as a conservative party anymore. There's the CRAZIES and the ALMOST CRAZIES.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with a 590 FICO score!"

U.S. Warned on Debt Load
S&P Signals Top Credit Rating Is in Danger, Stoking Political Battle on Deficit


A blunt warning Monday from a credit-rating firm about the U.S. government's mounting debt pushed stock markets lower and intensified political divisions in Washington about how best to tackle growing deficits......

The White House last week proposed reducing the deficit at a moderate pace through a combination of tax increases, changes to Medicare and cuts in military and other spending.......

[read the rest]

S&P was apparently less-than-impressed with Obama's Version 2.0 of his 2012 Budget proposal!

Also not impressed is Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf:

CBO: "We Don't Estimate Speeches"
Real Clear Politics
John Hindraker
June 23, 2011

The Democrats' failure to propose a budget, let alone vote on one, is perhaps the most important of the many scandals now swirling around that party. President Obama submitted a FY 2012 budget in February, but it was dead on arrival. It made no effort to deal with the country's burgeoning debt crisis, and no one took it seriously. When it was eventually brought to the floor in the Senate, it failed to get a single vote.

In April, Obama delivered a speech on the debt crisis in which he seemed to walk away from his February budget. But the speech was characteristically vague, and Obama never did follow up with a revised budget. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have violated ederal law by failing to produce a budget proposal. Despite daily calls for them to comply with the law by Senator Jeff Sessions and others, they have hunkered down and refused to put anything on the table.

This morning Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the House Budget Committee. He was asked about the proposals in Obama's April speech, and replied with what appears to be a degree of sarcasm:

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf had some harsh words for President Obama during a hearing held by the House Budget Committee on Thursday to discuss the nation's long-term fiscal outlook.

Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., asked Elmendorf whether the CBO had attempted to estimate the budgetary effects of the framework Obama outlined in April, which was based on a 12-year budget window instead of the usual 10 years.

"We don't estimate speeches," Elmendorf shot back.

So there you have it. The Democratic Party has defaulted on the most basic duty of a democratic government: it refuses to say how it intends to spend the people's money.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future by Eating our Seed Corn"

Yesterday, President Obama authorized the sale of 30 million barrels of oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve - the largest ever - ostensibly to make up for the disruptions in the oil supplies from Libya.

Since petroleum is a fungible commodity, this action has had the temporary net effect of reducing the price of oil by 6 percent.

Yet, in the aftermath of the 2010 BP well blowout Obama was telling us that there are no quick fixes to bring down rising gasoline prices and that we should do a better job of properly inflating our tires, while at the same time he was restricting drilling leases in the Gulf and elsewhere. As recently as two months ago following the start of the "kinetic military action" in Libya, Obama said he would be extremely cautious about tapping US emergency oil reserves, since the US Strategic Petroleum Reserves were designed to be used only when there are major supply disruptions. What has happened since then to turn the situation in Libya into a major supply disruption? My guess is that it's the negative effect his sinking poll numbers are having on his re-election campaign fund raising.

By releasing these reserves, Obama is undercutting his own arguments against allowing additional US oil exploration and production. How can releasing stored oil in Louisiana have such an immediate effect on prices that new oil from the Gulf would not? Obama has shown that he is all too willing to sell saved oil that he is unwilling to replace. Instead of allowing producers to look for new sources in 2009 and 2010, we are in effect eating our national petroleum "seed corn" that should be saved for a real emergency in the future.

[3WC]

Mikeg is correct.

This latest ploy by the Administration and the IEA is a ridiculous political move. The planned release by the 28 IEA countries including the U.S., of 60 million bbls of oil into the market over the next 30 days is equivalent to 16.75 HOURS of worldwide consumption.

There is a glut of oil already. The world standard quality for oil is West Texas Intermediate [[WTI) and worldwide it is priced in dollars as if delivered to Cushing, OK. Cushing was one of the big, early oil fields. Not all U.S. crude is delivered to Cushing although the area has about 25 million bbls of storage capacity and much oil produced in the mid-continent and much from Canada is delivered there for redistribution throughout the U.S. Cushing today is basically out of storage capacity and producers and pipeline companies are frantically tryting to build more capacity. Furthermore, refining throughputs are running at 97% of capacity. I don't know where they are supposed to put the SPR oil they are going to release.

Crude prices tanked yesterday [[but, still above $90/bbl a couple of hours ago) and the reason is that crude is no longer based so much on supply and demand as it is on the strength of the dollar [[down today worldwide except up a little against the Euro), and the political instability factor. Crude did not drop so much yesterday because of the release of oil from the SPR - it had already been falling for some time before that announcement - but because supply and demand are so out of whack currently that the announcement maybe accounted for a slight drop in price.

That oil will have to be replaced sooner or later, by law, and probably at a higher price.

Alao, when the SPR was established, the reserves were to used strictly in national emergencies, never for price maipulation, as every president since Clinton has done as I recall.

Obama's so-called energy policies are a major factor in financially disabling the country. He's a huge job killer, at least in the energy sector. But, his policies make me a lot of money by preventing drilling as much as he can in the U.S. and thereby keeping prices artificially high. I can't wait to see what the U.S. has to pay to replace the piddly assed 30 million bbls it's dumping on the market.

Obama has a lot of kool-aid drinkers out there who will support him no matter what, but he must also think the rest of us are so stupid that we can't figure out the intended and unintended consequences of his policies.

[old guy]

Mikeg is correct.

Crude prices tanked yesterday [[but, still above $90/bbl a couple of hours ago) and the reason is that crude is no longer based so much on supply and demand as it is on the strength of the dollar [[down today worldwide except up a little against the Euro), and the political instability factor.

What about speculators? Are you saying that isn't affecting oil prices?

[Mikeg]

What about speculators? Are you saying that isn't affecting oil prices?

How can what amounts to "side betting" affect the actual "game" of pricing based on supply vs. demand?

Scapegoating the Speculators

[old guy]

How can what amounts to "side betting" affect the actual "game" of pricing based on supply vs. demand?

Scapegoating the Speculators

You sent me to a web site that was founded by the Koch Bros. I have to re-boot my computer and take a shower.

[Mikeg]

You sent me to a web site that was founded by the Koch Bros. I have to re-boot my computer and take a shower.

I didn't send you there, your curiosity got the best of your closed-mindedness so you clicked on the link using your own free will. Why are you unwilling to accept responsibility for your own decision and action?

[old guy]

Okay, that's better.

1. Excessive energy speculation today is at its highest levels ever, and even Goldman Sachs now admits that at least $27 of the price of crude oil is a result from reckless speculation rather than market fundamentals of supply and demand.

2. October 6, 1986: First oil derivative is introduced to Wall Street by traders at Koch. Koch Industries executive Lawrence Kitchen devised the “first ever oil-indexed price swap between Koch Industries and Chase Manhattan Bank.”

3. 1990-1992: Koch, along with several oil companies and Wall Street speculators, form a coalition lobbying group to deregulate oil speculation. A coalition called “The Energy Group” is organized to press the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [[CFTC) to allow oil derivatives to be traded off the NYMEX or any other regulated exchange.

4. January 21, 1993. Wendy Gramm makes first major move to deregulate oil speculation. “On the final day of the [George H.W.] Bush administration, January 21, 1993, [CFTC chairwoman] Wendy Gramm … approved the rule exempting key energy futures contracts from government regulation and returned a great chunk of the energy market to the grand old days of unregulated futures trading.

5. December 12, 2000: Sen. Phil Gramm [[R-TX), after being lobbied by Koch and Enron, creates the infamous “Enron Loophole” vastly deregulating the oil speculation market.

6. 2008: Rampant oil speculation spikes prices to unprecedented levels. As academics from the Peterson Institute, the James Baker Institute at Rice University, and others conclude, non-commercial speculators begin to dominate the market, forcing up prices.

7. 2009: Koch presentation to ICE boasts that Koch is on the level of transnational big banks and can now be considered one of the world’s top five oil speculators.

8. 2010: Koch’s Tea Party front groups and lobbyists fight financial reforms designed to reign in the unregulated energy market. While Americans for Prosperity, as well as other Koch fronts, decry the Wall Street reform bill debated in Congress, Koch lobbied to water-down provisions of the bill related to derivatives.

9. 2011: As oil speculation again hits record highs, leading to record high oil prices, Koch’s allies in Congress fight to undermine new reforms and allow unchecked speculation to spiral out of control.

Other than that, I'm not sure.

[old guy]

I didn't send you there, your curiosity got the best of your closed-mindedness so you clicked on the link using your own free will. Why are you unwilling to accept responsibility for your own decision and action?

You're right. There must be something wrong with me. Thanks for helping me through that.

[maxx]

President Obama submitted a FY 2012 budget in February, but it was dead on arrival.

No doubt because it included limiting tax deductions used by the super-rich. And it's amazing that since the Republicans are so serious about cutting the budget, they spent time talking and lying about Planned Parenthood which represents such a tiny part of the federal budget as to be insignificant.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with Massive, Job-Killing Tax Increases in 2013!"

At his press conference today, President Obama said

So, when you hear folks saying ‘Well, the president shouldn’t want massive job killing tax increases when the economy is this weak.’ Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.”

[Detroitej72]

We have the lowest tax rate since the 1950's, yet we suffered through some of the worst economic times since the Great Depression. This proves that con's have been lying when they preach that the way to create jobs is to lower taxes, yet nobody is calling them out on it. It's pretty sad just how much power that the right wing media has over the population.

[Mikeg]

We have the lowest tax rate since the 1950's, yet we suffered through some of the worst economic times since the Great Depression. This proves that con's have been lying when they preach that the way to create jobs is to lower taxes, yet nobody is calling them out on it. It's pretty sad just how much power that the right wing media has over the population.

Yeah, sure, it was the right-wing media that made him say that stupid remark. More likely it was his teleprompter!

If low taxes are really the reason for the non-existent economic recovery, explain to us why Obama didn't "call them out" today and demand tax increases now as part of the debt ceiling solution?

[Detroitej72]

If low taxes are really the reason for the non-existent economic recovery, explain to us why Obama didn't "call them out" today and demand tax increases now as part of the debt ceiling solution?

Because he is a right of center politician who seems to be more interested in mediating rather than pushing through his agenda.

By the way, you seem to have no response to the fact that cons have been lying about lower taxes being the cure for a lousy economy.

[TKshreve]

Because he is a right of center politician who seems to be more interested in mediating rather than pushing through his agenda.

By the way, you seem to have no response to the fact that cons have been lying about lower taxes being the cure for a lousy economy.

No Mikeg never addresses the important facts. He simply regurgitates the same silly conservative talking points that are "rammed down our throats" day in-day out. I guess it's a war of attrition when it comes to debating and dealing with cons.

If low taxes and job creation have a positive correlation, why has our country seen manufacturing depletion, suppressed wages and job outsoucing at record levels the past 20 years?

We should be swimming in jobs according to the conservative talking points, yet we're swimming in unemployment.

Redundant Conservative talking point in T-minus......

[oladub]

graph of federal and state spending = total of paid and deferred taxes

[Mikeg]

Because he is a right of center politician who seems to be more interested in mediating rather than pushing through his agenda.

By the way, you seem to have no response to the fact that cons have been lying about lower taxes being the cure for a lousy economy.

I'm supposed to engage someone in discussion who believes that President Obama is a "right of center politician"? That's rich!

I will agree with you on one point, Obama is not a leader - unfortunately for us all.

[Mikeg]

No Mikeg never addresses the important facts. He simply regurgitates the same silly conservative talking points that are "rammed down our throats" day in-day out. I guess it's a war of attrition when it comes to debating and dealing with cons.

If low taxes and job creation have a positive correlation, why has our country seen manufacturing depletion, suppressed wages and job outsoucing at record levels the past 20 years?

We should be swimming in jobs according to the conservative talking points, yet we're swimming in unemployment.

Redundant Conservative talking point in T-minus......

What you seem to consider as "important facts" are nothing but opinions, so why do I need to address them?

Regarding changes in the tax laws, it's been shown that a reduction in the income and/or capital gains tax rates can produce more revenue than what would have been expected at the reduced rates. Similarly, an increase in the income and/or capital gains tax rates can produce less revenue than what would have been expected at the higher rates. That is because individuals can change their income, spending and investing behaviors in response to how the tax law changes personally affect them.

However, the CBO is required to analyze proposed tax law changes using "static scoring", which ignores the fact that in the real world, individuals change their behavior in response to the new tax laws and therefore produce the "unexpected" revenue results.

Given that two-thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending, why - in the middle of the worst recession in 80 years - would someone believe that raising personal income tax rates is a good measure that would not hurt the pace of economic recovery? Not only will the Federal Treasury not receive the predicted levels of revenue based on the CBO's scoring of the tax law changes, the incremental amount of new taxes collected are no longer "disposable income" and are not available to be spent by the consumers, further depressing the rate of economic recovery.

[ghettopalmetto]

Regarding changes in the tax laws, it's been shown that a reduction in the income and/or capital gains tax rates can produce more revenue than what would have been expected at the reduced rates.

This is pure speculation based on Chicago School theory. Please show numbers for 2001-2010.

[Detroitej72]

I'm supposed to engage someone in discussion who believes that President Obama is a "right of center politician"? That's rich!.

Let's see, Obama has renewed the Bush tax cuts for the rich, never closed Gitmo, continued the Bush Wall Street Bailouts, hasn't left Iraq yet, and for the most part, his policies are continuing the Bush coarse. Not to mention he didn't give the people a single payer option in the healthcare bill, instead borrowing heavily from the plan that John McCain touted during his presidential run. And we shall see if he gives into the Republican's and cuts Social Security.

The problem with you cons is that your so indoctrinated by the right wing media that you fail to see that our current president isn't all that different from the previous one. Hell, most of you people still complain about Clinton, and his policies were more conservative than W's. Remember the budget surplus we had when he left office?

[lit joe]

We import 80% of our seafood the remaining 20% fresh seafood non farmed comes from the Gulf coast one of the US largest oil reserves are in the everglades already drilled and capped do we really need off shore drilling and its unregulated abuses?

Your right we don,t want no stinkin drilling those 250,ooo jobs loss. Let them strave I like 4 dollar a gallon gas. Lets stick it to them real good take away their tax breaks, what are they going to raise it to five bucks. Boy Rich you make a lot of sense good job.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future in a 'big, messy, tough democracy' "

During an attempt to pry more campaign contributions from his fat-cat supporters at a campaign fundraiser last Wednesday night, President Obama offered another excuse for his poor performance over the past two and one-half years besides the shop-worn "inherited challenges":

When I said 'change we can believe in' I didn't say 'change we can believe in tomorrow.' Not change we can believe in next week. We knew this was going to take time because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy.

I have to admit, he's a pretty smooth operator if he can use that line and still raise millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions in a single visit to Chicago. Apparently they have all forgotten about how he used Dr. King's "fierce urgency of now" and the mantra of "we can't wait to _______" during his 2008 campaign speeches.

Wouldn't it be nice if the "truth in advertising" laws were applicable to politicians? Then he would have been obligated to say "change we can believe in when I become a 'lame duck' president".

[Mikeg]

Winning the Future - with another "Big Speech"!

White House aides have announced that the "Greatest Orator of Modern Times" will fire up his Teleprompter shortly after Labor Day and share with the huddled masses his latest ideas on job-creation and deficit reduction.

Only 445 more days until the huddled masses have their chance to speak.

[old guy]

Wouldn't it be nice if the "truth in advertising" laws were applicable to politicians?

Yes, it would. All the way around.