2012 Elections in the USA

So my designated wild-ass liberal monger. Did you watch the debate tonight. As a liberal wanting a second term for obomanation, who of the GOP candidates concern you the most? Furthermore, what do you think of Romney's 28% max tax, close the loopholes revenue neutral idea. Inquiring minds want to know. Monger on Dude. Toymann.

[QUOTE=Esten; 421089]Hey Toymann that's cool. If you think that article implies Obama created those jobs (even though it does NOT claim this) , fair enough for you to point out some of those jobs were probably set in motion before Obama came along. If Bush had something to do with them, good for him, he did a few things right as I've said before. You guys should really stop calling him evil and saying everything was his fault.

The 'direction' of my post and that article, is to put the lie to the claim some Republicans are making that Obama is stifling oil & gas development. Jobs are increasing, rigs are increasing, production increasing. Those are the facts.

Now it was very interesting listening to Bill O'Reilly today. Recently he has had a rare, apolitical discussion of something, in this case what is causing the high price of gas. In fact he acknowledged production is up, and US demand is down due to the mild winter, so the high price contradicts the laws of supply and demand. Basically the take away was that the oil companies are exporting the oil, in turn reducing the US supply, driving the price up. If this is true, increasing production further (as Republicans want) is not necessarily the answer to driving the price back down. O'Reilly then goes on to suggest something surprising (from a conservative) : Obama could ask Congress to raise export taxes on oil companies, to encourage them to sell more oil in the US (thereby driving down price).

That's an idea worth discussion. Republicans won't likely get behind it though, given their earlier vigorous opposition to ending tax loopholes for Big Oil, and the ideological positions they have dug themselves into on taxes and 'government meddling' in the private market.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://screen.yahoo.com/crazystupidpolitics/[/url]

[quote=Ivestor's Business Daily][size=+1][b]5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama's Energy Speech[/size][/b]

Energy: The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.

Obama's main message to struggling motorists was: It's not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama's peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:

"We're focused on production."

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. Says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has "done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."

"The USA consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that "we can't drill our way to lower gas prices." The argument goes that since the USA supply is limited, it won't ever make a difference to world prices.


It's bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.

In fact, the USA has a mind-boggling 1. 4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to "fuel the present needs in the USA for around 250 years," according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.

"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."

Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

"We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

Fact: Renewable energy simply won't play an important role in the country's energy picture anytime soon, accounting for just 13% of USA energy production by 2035, according to the EIA.

"There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices."

Fact: Obama could drive down oil prices right now simply by announcing a more aggressive effort to boost domestic supplies. When President Bush lifted a moratorium in 2008, oil prices immediately fell $9 a barrel.

Obama said in his speech that Americans aren't stupid. He's right about that, which is why most are giving his energy policy a thumbs down.[/QUOTE]This clown needs to go ASAP.

We have such a huge supply of natural gas and the prices are so low, that the gas producers are capping their wells. The natural gas the is loccated incidental to drilling for oil is being released and not captured. The techology is mature safe and readily available. The distrubution system is being built out with out any government incentives. The president says the USA is the saudi arabia of natural gas. It is also clean in term of green-house gas emmissions. The natural and near perfect solution.

The has been a bill pending every year to provvide tax credist for conversion to natural gas for larger commercial vehicles. Minor changes in the regulartory framework without a tax incentive would spend-up the conversation process and create jobs and lessen our dependence on imported oil.

Bboth the parties and all the candidates are sucking on "big oil's" tit and nothing can be done.

The natural gas industry is preparing the liquify USA's cheap natural gas and export it to europe and asia. Do some reading on westport energy's website and chaniere's site.

I may write in the name elmer fudd when I vote in the next election.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 421106]We have such a huge supply of natural gas and the prices are so low, that the gas producers are capping their wells. The natural gas the is loccated incidental to drilling for oil is being released and not captured. The techology is mature safe and readily available. The distrubution system is being built out with out any government incentives. The president says the USA is the saudi arabia of natural gas. It is also clean in term of green-house gas emmissions. The natural and near perfect solution.

The has been a bill pending every year to provvide tax credist for conversion to natural gas for larger commercial vehicles. Minor changes in the regulartory framework without a tax incentive would spend-up the conversation process and create jobs and lessen our dependence on imported oil.

Bboth the parties and all the candidates are sucking on "big oil's" tit and nothing can be done.

The natural gas industry is preparing the liquify USA's cheap natural gas and export it to europe and asia. Do some reading on westport energy's website and chaniere's site.

I may write in the name elmer fudd when I vote in the next election.[/QUOTE]As citizens and consumers, do we really have a choice? Yeah, peddle a bicycle. Yet, we have the propoganda machine that urges us to consume more, and to dig more. Profit (as in domination) is the controlling factor. Our lifestyles, even the lowliest of the middle class far exceeds 75% (?) of the world. Yeah, when we buy that 2nd or 3rd car, or when we buy just to buy, we have to question our culture or our lifestyle. But that would be telling people how to live, and that's just not America. The sad truth is that when we buy, most of us are not in control of what we buy or why we buy, we just like to think that we do.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;421112]The sad truth is that when we buy, most of us are not in control of what we buy or why we buy, we just like to think that we do.[/QUOTE]Totally lost me with that one BlackShirt, mind clarifying this point. Inquiring minds want to know. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Well, I was hoping that Newt would get the nomination, but it looks like Whiny Willard, baptizer extraordinaire will be able to buy it. So seeing that someone as stupid as Toymann (remember South Carolina?) is convinced that the Mormon will beat Obama: I am now taking the bet of the "man" who needs toys to back up his lack of testosterone, dimension and technique and has his head up his ass. Since I don't like to be seen with losers nor ugly individuals who can't spell, after Obama wins, the limp dick Toymann can give the Madaho's money I have won to Jackson and I'll pick it up from him. By the way Toymann, you have been blocked (by Jackson), so any future girlish insulting posts referring to whale watchers will not be seen by me. Maybe they will interest others, although I doubt it. So don't spend all your money on more toys or your fishing trips and make sure my Madaho's money (taking inflation into account let's call it an even 2000 pesos) is put aside for November.

Obviously if the Republicans get smart and don´t run Willard, the bet´s off.

[QUOTE=Toymann;421113]Totally lost me with that one BlackShirt, mind clarifying this point. Inquiring minds want to know. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Just walk around or look in the mirror. The kind of food Americans choose to consume is a prime example of my statement. Are Americans more healthy just because life expectancy is longer that say 50 years ago? Who is really in control when your kids throw a trantrum because you chose not to go to McDonalds? Or even when you choose to go voluntary. And the size of the servings, I will stop right here.

The Goldman Sacks partners may decide that it is worth $100, 000, 000. Or more to get rid of the Obama guy. Let's presume set up thru Litchenstin-which never signed the tax treaty with the USA- the boys/gals set-up 100 corporations hiding thru Panama and the channel islands to each donate money to a number of different super packs. They have lunch with a few of their friends and former partners to raise another $100, 000, 000.

Now the wall street robber barons plaster the tv with public relations info and commercials to sell whatever themes their market research suggests would influnce the moderates in the USA to vote for anyone other than Obama. The just buy the elections, the same way mcdonalds influences average good people to buy their unhealthy shit that passes for food. [sorry to those out there who love micky D's-it is a collection of unehalthy and minimally nuitritous, ok tasting stuff]

Or assume that the shoe is one the other foot: instead of goldman sacks, warren buffet and a group of super-rich democrat types and entertainment businss folks, put up their own half billion dollars to sell the american people their own brand of horse manure-they could elect fidel castro on a write-in campaign as burak is too moderate for them.

USA will become a super circus with these new powerful super packs-elections need fund raising reform of some type. The new super packs will provide even more power to the super wealthy-a club the requires hundreds of millions of dollars to belong.

OK-I have been reading about mitt's nw tax proposals-it's trickle down economics, which was called "voodoo economics" by mainstream republicans 20 years ago-what's good for the rich, is good for the poor as the new found wealth of the wealthy will trickle down.........

Is this just a bad joke. I grew up in another country, that loves to bash the US, but your statement is totally idiotic! I am virtually speechless (and that says something). Sorry I ever asked you to elaborate. Either you are totally arrogant to judge america based on your perceptions of fast food or meal portion size or just a ranting idiot. Sorry for engaging your initial post. Over and out! Where is WW when I need him. I'm guessing he is watching this thread and ROTFLHAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I was SHOCKED reading this:

[url]http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url]

The changes in distribution 1983 to almost today:

Distribution of wealth, USA, over time.

The concentration of wealth in the top 1% 1900 to 2010:-this from a business magazine, no lefty source here-look at the charts-radical concentration of wealth in th top 1% `1945 to 2010 increasing. During the reagan years and Bush II years-the boat has not been rising for evryone:

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4[/url]

My conclusions: rickle down economics are against the economic interests of at least 90% of the population, if not really 99%. I think that blackshirt makes a valid point all thought the way he makes it is not too clear. You can sell almost anything if you can spend enough $$

If it pleases you, I am the ranting idiot. I don't any problem with whatever characterization you want to put me in.

I don't judge America by just what it eats. It is the waste and over-indulgence that will erode our wealth and our moral strength. An old wisdom, it takes 3 generations to waste a fortune. We are on our way there. History has a habit of repeating itself.

Junk is food is not necessay bad food, but it is food that you should not be eating all the time. It is convenient food made for the American lifestyle. Diabetes is epidemic in America, and is making healthcare very expensive. A drink that made American very rich and famous is now banned in schools. So does that tell you anything.

WW, I need you, too. Come on back in! I think Toymann needs some mentoring.

This idea that those who work hard, have ability and accumulate wealth are evil and should be demonized is interesting.

If you want to see concentration of wealth look at the sports world. Tens of million of people play sports at some level. Little league baseball, junior high basketball, girls soccer. However. 99. 9999999% of the wealth in sports is concentrated in the hands of about 1000 professional athletes. Nobody asks these athletes to share their wealth with the 99. 9999999% of athletes who don't have their talent, their work ethics or their genetics.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of people with limited success also have limited ability. These people are the equivalent of 3 foot tall basketball players, 95 pound pound football players or 400 pound sprinters. We do not punish or condemn successful athletes and we should not punish or condemn successful people.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 421120]The Goldman Sacks partners may decide that it is worth $100, 000, 000. Or more to get rid of the Obama guy. Let's presume set up thru Litchenstin-which never signed the tax treaty with the USA- the boys / gals set-up 100 corporations hiding thru Panama and the channel islands to each donate money to a number of different super packs. They have lunch with a few of their friends and former partners to raise another $100, 000, 000.

Now the wall street robber barons plaster the tv with public relations info and commercials to sell whatever themes their market research suggests would influnce the moderates in the USA to vote for anyone other than Obama. The just buy the elections, the same way mcdonalds influences average good people to buy their unhealthy shit that passes for food. [sorry to those out there who love micky D's-it is a collection of unehalthy and minimally nuitritous, ok tasting stuff]

Or assume that the shoe is one the other foot: instead of goldman sacks, warren buffet and a group of super-rich democrat types and entertainment businss folks, put up their own half billion dollars to sell the american people their own brand of horse manure-they could elect fidel castro on a write-in campaign as burak is too moderate for them.

USA will become a super circus with these new powerful super packs-elections need fund raising reform of some type. The new super packs will provide even more power to the super wealthy-a club the requires hundreds of millions of dollars to belong.

OK-I have been reading about mitt's nw tax proposals-it's trickle down economics, which was called "voodoo economics" by mainstream republicans 20 years ago-what's good for the rich, is good for the poor as the new found wealth of the wealthy will trickle down.[/QUOTE]The rich and powerful making sure of the status quo is not unique to America. It is a world wide phenomenon. Only question I suppose, is that if you are rich and powerful, what stance would you be taking?

The reagan years:

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15[/url]

If your income is earned rather than from capital gains and interest on financial instruments, you are getting crapped on. The top 1% will do with their money whatever is in their own best interest. Starting jobs through investment might be somewhere on the list, but for most it is preservation of capital and minimizing risk of loss of capital.

The guys on this board with over $10,000,000, are you investing to start businesses to provide jobs or investing in manufacturing companies who might expand plants and hire workers in the USA? Most I know are holding a large % in cash or t-bills and are concerned about preserving capital and trying to beat the rate of inflation.