The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In honor of Gassie's completely cite free post about Obama's speech today, I decided to post something from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSTRE7B527620111206

Quote"OBAMA HITS REPUBLICANS IN STARKLY POPULIST SPEECH

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama turned up the heat on his Republican foes on Tuesday as he portrayed himself as a champion of the middle class and laid out in the starkest terms yet the populist themes of his 2012 re-election bid.

In a speech meant to echo a historic address given by former President Theodore Roosevelt in the same Kansas town more than 100 years ago, Obama pressed his case for economic policies he insists will benefit ordinary Americans struggling through hard times.

He seized the opportunity to step up pressure on congressional Republicans to extend an expiring payroll tax cut that independent economists say is needed to keep the fragile economic recovery from unraveling.

But Obama's broader message was a call for people to get a "fair shot" and a "fair share" as he pushed for wealthier Americans to pay higher taxes and for Wall Street and Big Business to play by the rules.

"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class," Obama said in Osawatomie in eastern Kansas. "At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement."

With the 2012 presidential election just 11 months away, Obama's trip was part of a strategy by the president and his fellow Democrats to cast the Republicans as the party beholden to the rich.

Many Republican lawmakers are skeptical that extending the tax cut beyond this year will spur job creation.

But Republican leaders, fearing a possible backlash from voters in the 2012 ballot, have expressed a willingness to find a way to prevent the tax cuts from lapsing. But they remain at odds with Obama and his Democrats on how to fund it.

Obama used his speech to accuse Republicans of suffering from "collective amnesia" about the recent economic and financial crisis, and he strongly defended his Wall Street regulatory overhaul that many Republicans opposed.

Though polls show most Americans support Obama's effort to increase taxes on the wealthy, his public approval ratings remain in the low to mid-40 percent range.

Republicans charged that Obama's latest speech, as well as a series of campaign-style trips to push his stalled $447 billion jobs plan, was intended to distract from the struggling economy and persistently high unemployment, considered damaging for his re-election chances."

I watched the speech.  It was sad.  First he thought he was in Texas, then went through the standard class warfare meme, then he finished by attempting to align himself to Teddy Roosevelt. I will never get that 10 minutes back.

He's poised to make his whole campaign about this fairness theme, and not even address economic recovery.  I guess he thinks he can gain momentum by further developing the idea that we are a nation of victims.  I don't think Democrats are that gullible this time around.

If President Obama was any friend to the middle class, we wouldn't have been maintaining 8.5 to 9+% unemployment the last three years.  Sooner or later, the people who voted him in the last time will realize he hasn't done them any favors.  He's made a lot of noise about it, but he's not reigned in the banksters, the 1%'ers, the scurrilous traders and CEO's who have screwed over everyone else.  No, instead, he's dined with them, vacationed with them, and played golf with them, then blames an obstinate GOP for his utter lack of leadership.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2011, 03:47:04 PM
If President Obama was any friend to the middle class, we wouldn't have been maintaining 8.5 to 9+% unemployment the last three years.  Sooner or later, the people who voted him in the last time will realize he hasn't done them any favors.  He's made a lot of noise about it, but he's not reigned in the banksters, the 1%'ers, the scurrilous traders and CEO's who have screwed over everyone else.  No, instead, he's dined with them, vacationed with them, and played golf with them, then blames an obstinate GOP for his utter lack of leadership.

They're both to blame though.  The GOP's "be against everything he is even if it's a talking point for our party" approach hasn't exactly endeared them to public, as the Congress approval ratings show (single digits).  Even when Dems and the Prez have shown a willingness to attempt compromise, the GOP will have nothing to do with it.

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 04:19:21 PM
They're both to blame though.  The GOP's "be against everything he is even if it's a talking point for our party" approach hasn't exactly endeared them to public, as the Congress approval ratings show (single digits).  Even when Dems and the Prez have shown a willingness to attempt compromise, the GOP will have nothing to do with it.

You think President Clinton didn't face that with the GOP revolution and Contract For America in 1994?  He succeeded because he had great leadership skills and knew the benefit of a compromise.  Obama thinks old school Chicago intimidation is a substitute for leadership in Washington and it simply isn't.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2011, 04:42:30 PM
You think President Clinton didn't face that with the GOP revolution and Contract For America in 1994?  He succeeded because he had great leadership skills and knew the benefit of a compromise.  Obama thinks old school Chicago intimidation is a substitute for leadership in Washington and it simply isn't.

That's where we disagree.  The mantra of the current GOP is to get O out at ALL costs, even if that means bringing the country down with it.  In Clinton's presidency, the Republicans cared a little more about the fate of the Untion.  Hell, I'm even beginning to like Coburn these days.  Of all of them, he's beginning to sound sane with his talk of taxing more well-to-do people.  The current rank/file in the GOP right now probably want to tar and feather him.

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 06:27:31 PM
That's where we disagree.  The mantra of the current GOP is to get O out at ALL costs, even if that means bringing the country down with it.  In Clinton's presidency, the Republicans cared a little more about the fate of the Untion.  Hell, I'm even beginning to like Coburn these days.  Of all of them, he's beginning to sound sane with his talk of taxing more well-to-do people.  The current rank/file in the GOP right now probably want to tar and feather him.

Get Obama out at all costs?  Hello? Remember White Water and the impeachment of Clinton?

IMO, Clinton faced a far more difficult political environment.  Not only did the Republicans go after him politically, they made it deeply personal.  Obama hasn't had to live daily with a special counsel investigation and what you keep missing is that every olive branch supposedly offered by Obama always has thorns near the stem.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2011, 06:51:49 PM
Get Obama out at all costs?  Hello? Remember White Water and the impeachment of Clinton?

IMO, Clinton faced a far more difficult political environment.  Not only did the Republicans go after him politically, they made it deeply personal.  Obama hasn't had to live daily with a special counsel investigation and what you keep missing is that every olive branch supposedly offered by Obama always has thorns near the stem.

They tried to back door him though and hope that Whitewater, which really wasn't tied so much to him as it was Hillary, would be a way for them to impeach him.  The Repubs this term have out-and-out said their number one goal is to ensure no second term for this president.

And the Repubs don't even reach out for the branch.  They choose to not really listen when it comes time.  But when you have Suntan Boehner running things in the House, that's not so incredibly surprising, is it?

But you've sort of proven my point.  The Rs will stop at nothing to make sure their man makes it or stays in the Executive.  I seem to remember a hotel named Watergate....

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 07:28:46 PM
They tried to back door him though and hope that Whitewater, which really wasn't tied so much to him as it was Hillary, would be a way for them to impeach him.  The Repubs this term have out-and-out said their number one goal is to ensure no second term for this president.

And the Repubs don't even reach out for the branch.  They choose to not really listen when it comes time.  But when you have Suntan Boehner running things in the House, that's not so incredibly surprising, is it?

But you've sort of proven my point.  The Rs will stop at nothing to make sure their man makes it or stays in the Executive.  I seem to remember a hotel named Watergate....

A post about Clinton and you had to throw in "back door".   :P

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 07:28:46 PM
They tried to back door him though and hope that Whitewater, which really wasn't tied so much to him as it was Hillary, would be a way for them to impeach him.  The Repubs this term have out-and-out said their number one goal is to ensure no second term for this president.

And the Repubs don't even reach out for the branch.  They choose to not really listen when it comes time.  But when you have Suntan Boehner running things in the House, that's not so incredibly surprising, is it?

But you've sort of proven my point.  The Rs will stop at nothing to make sure their man makes it or stays in the Executive.  I seem to remember a hotel named Watergate....

The R's ran for cover from Nixon after Watergate broke.

There's nothing to listen to.  Any offer has something attached to it the President knows the R's will never go for.  Sham jobs bill?  Add some tax increases no one wants, not even the Dems and he can say his jobs bill, which sucked in the first place, can't go anywhere.  Grid-lock in the Democrat-controlled Senate?  No problem, blame the minority Republicans.

I've never seen a President do so little and get away with blaming so many.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2011, 08:08:34 PM
The R's ran for cover from Nixon after Watergate broke.

There's nothing to listen to.  Any offer has something attached to it the President knows the R's will never go for.  Sham jobs bill?  Add some tax increases no one wants, not even the Dems and he can say his jobs bill, which sucked in the first place, can't go anywhere.  Grid-lock in the Democrat-controlled Senate?  No problem, blame the minority Republicans.

I've never seen a President do so little and get away with blaming so many.

What more can he do?  He's at the mercy of Congress -- hell, for that matter ALL Presidents are until it comes time for the veto and even then that's limited.  The GOP this cycle wants nothing to do with him.  They do that at their peril at the polls next time around.

Time for a shakedown, and not just the executive branch, either.

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 08:31:57 PM
What more can he do?  He's at the mercy of Congress -- hell, for that matter ALL Presidents are until it comes time for the veto and even then that's limited.  The GOP this cycle wants nothing to do with him.  They do that at their peril at the polls next time around.

Time for a shakedown, and not just the executive branch, either.

Come on, Hoss. Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses for a long time and did nothing to get this economy off center. His party didn't need a single repub vote to get his agenda through. Latourette nails it:

Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2011, 08:48:24 PM
Come on, Hoss. Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses for a long time and did nothing to get this economy off center. His party didn't need a single repub vote to get his agenda through. Latourette nails it:

Kinda tough to do when the Senate isn't filibuster-proof.  You do realize that the Republican minority in the Senate filibustered a record number of times, right?

I still say this is a do-nothing congress and has been since 2008.

Look, I'm not always leaning to the left.  But when you're always standing on the fence nothing gets done.

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 09:40:43 PM
I still say this is a do-nothing congress and has been since 2008.

And we are lucky it has been.  I hate to think of where we would be if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had gotten what they really wanted.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
And we are lucky it has been.  I hate to think of where we would be if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had gotten what they really wanted.

We'd have a payroll tax cut, that's for sure. 

Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2011, 09:57:44 PM
We'd have a payroll tax cut, that's for sure. 

To guarantee that Social Security won't be there for the people that will need it the most.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
And we are lucky it has been.  I hate to think of where we would be if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had gotten what they really wanted.

Better off?

Quote from: Hoss on December 06, 2011, 10:16:26 PM
Better off?

I obviously don't think so or I wouldn't hate to think about it.

The Dem majority was never completely filibuster proof.  In the House it was for two years, but the Senate never had enough votes for D legislation to just sail through.  Similarly, the Dems have always been bad at enforcing party discipline, and as the Recession got worse, the GOP got more and more shrill, and Obama's leadership receded, they ran for cover every which way.  

The GOP has been obstructionist to an unprecedented degree.  The use of the filibuster has skyrocketed into territory that has no historical comparison.  Likewise, the GOP has blocked Obama nominees for standard executive branch appointments at every turn, as well as his court appointees.  They've even blocked his recess appointments by holding ceremonial continuing sessions through official recesses on their own.  That's left something like a third of the executive branch open positions unfilled.  

Obama's dropped the leadership ball during several different points, but he really has gone up against a minority party that has done everything possible to keep him from governing.  

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 10:01:01 PM
To guarantee that Social Security won't be there for the people that will need it the most.

The payroll tax cut will not destroy or diminish Social Security for anyone. 

Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2011, 10:22:50 PM
Obama's dropped the leadership ball during several different points, but he really has gone up against a minority party that has done everything possible to keep him from governing totally destroying the country.  

Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2011, 10:27:09 PM
The payroll tax cut will not destroy or diminish Social Security for anyone. 

Where is the money going to come from?  It's already in trouble, partly because the funds are being used elsewhere.  I haven't seen anything showing that reduced rates will fix that.

RA, please tell me what specific things Obama was going to do but didn't because the GOP blocked him.  And then please tell me which of those things were going to destroy the country and specifically how.  

I really want to know this.  I perceive him bending over backwards to please your caucus and trying to garner enough votes to pass his legislation.  While I'm a liberal I'm still capable of understanding when something is liberal and conservative, and I'm sure that you and I would agree generally in calling something liberal or conservative. And yet somehow the things that Obama proposes somehow seem to you to be the height of commie insanity while I see them as mildly conservative or only slightly left wing.  How is that?

Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2011, 03:47:04 PM
If President Obama was any friend to the middle class, we wouldn't have been maintaining 8.5 to 9+% unemployment the last three years.  Sooner or later, the people who voted him in the last time will realize he hasn't done them any favors.  He's made a lot of noise about it, but he's not reigned in the banksters, the 1%'ers, the scurrilous traders and CEO's who have screwed over everyone else.  No, instead, he's dined with them, vacationed with them, and played golf with them, then blames an obstinate GOP for his utter lack of leadership.

To a great degree you're right.  The unemployment rate is inexcusable, and it's been that way for nearly his entire presidency.  Even his proposed legislation has been less than required to put the middle class back on any sort of foundational footing.  Weak sauce in the short and medium term, and even weaker still if we're talking about long term, structural reform.  And no, he hasn't done anything to police or prosecute wrongdoing in the financial sector. 

But the alternative is far far worse.  Nothing I've seen from either Romney or Gingrich suggests that they have anything better to offer.  They're not offering prosecutions or policing of the financial system.  They're not offering anything remotely good for the middle class; in fact everything that's current GOP orthodoxy will reinforce and/or speed up economic inequality.  That's the exactly wrong direction. 

Obama ain't fantastic by a long shot, but given the choice between a slow recovery and a nosedive into political oblivion, I'll take the recovery any day. 

Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2011, 10:36:02 PM
RA, please tell me what specific things Obama was going to do but didn't because the GOP blocked him.

You are the one saying Obama hasn't gotten what he wanted because he had to compromise so much.

The issues that I see are primarily tax issues.  Ending the Bush tax cuts.  It turns out many of them did help the 99%ers.  Picking and choosing which ones became a battle while vilifying Bush.  Claiming that the deficit can be largely solved without dipping into the middle class while increasing spending is part of the reason for class warfare claims.   He has backed off of some regulations he wanted due to the economy.  I am thinking of EPA stuff.  His administration has allowed exemptions to favored organizations to some of the costs of his Health Care package.  I will give him credit for getting Osama, even if he did use information obtained during the Bush administration.  I think he as weakened the world view of the US in an attempt to appease everyone.

Quote
And then please tell me which of those things were going to destroy the country and specifically how.

Goals are probably similar: strong economy, more access to health care, national defense.  How to get there is a basic philosophy difference between us.

Quote
I really want to know this.  I perceive him bending over backwards to please your caucus and trying to garner enough votes to pass his legislation.  While I'm a liberal I'm still capable of understanding when something is liberal and conservative, and I'm sure that you and I would agree generally in calling something liberal or conservative. And yet somehow the things that Obama proposes somehow seem to you to be the height of commie insanity while I see them as mildly conservative or only slightly left wing.  How is that?

I don't see him bending over backwards.  I see him giving the minimum he can to get his vision implemented. 

I consider you liberal enough that if you look east (right) you see California but not Hawaii.  I am definitely right of center.  I am probably not as right of center as you may think on some social issues but I probably am financially.  I don't think Obama is commie but he certainly has socialist leanings.  Even conservatives have socialist beliefs compared to pure Capitalism, they just won't admit it.  One big issue you and I disagree on is "income equality".   I see no reason to lower top to raise the bottom.  My personal opinion is that many of the big corp CEOs are overpaid but it's not a government problem to fix that.  As a current event: At American, the unions gave a bunch to help prevent bankruptcy a few years back.  When things started turning around (for a while) the big wigs started getting big bonuses.  I think that was wrong to not include the folks who helped make it possible.  If the future isn't secure enough to grant pay raises to the worker bees, give them a one time bonus too.  I cannot speak to whether the labor costs at American are out of line or not.  I do know that I believe that government intervention would be wrong, unless they require a taxpayer bailout.   

Back to equalizing.   I remember one of the efforts to equalize tag costs between cars and small trucks in Oklahoma.  Car owners thought they would get a lot lower price.  Nope, the price of truck tags went up.  Car tags only came down a little, if any.  Since then tag prices have been radically changed.  The second year tag on my BMW in 1996 was about $600.  Sometime after that it had a steep drop but I don't remember when. 

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 10:27:27 PM

And yet, in spite of all that obstructionism, the economy has been booming along (thanks to Big Banks making their extra hundreds of billions and doling out the huge bonuses to executives!)
And even a few of the 99% are seeing a slight improvement.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 11:22:23 PM

The issues that I see are primarily tax issues.  Ending the Bush tax cuts. 

And the obstructionism surrounding that?  When anyone with even less than half a brain understands that those tax cuts are what have made this situation, created by out of control banks, worse.  And that ending those cuts along with cutting spending IS the answer.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 11:22:23 PM

Goals are probably similar: strong economy, more access to health care, national defense.  How to get there is a basic philosophy difference between us.

National defense is a whole different thing from national offense - which is what we have practiced for way too long!

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2011, 11:22:23 PM

One big issue you and I disagree on is "income equality".   I see no reason to lower top to raise the bottom.  My personal opinion is that many of the big corp CEOs are overpaid but it's not a government problem to fix that. 

Never lower the top - raise the bottom!!

It is EXACTLY the governments job to fix that, since the government IS the one that granted all the special privileges to special interests in the tax code.  You know the big ones - where the 1%ers get to pay about 16% and the smaller incomes pay more!

It is a government granted subsidy TO those CEO's that WE get to subsidize.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 08:38:07 AM
Never lower the top - raise the bottom!!
It is EXACTLY the governments job to fix that, since the government IS the one that granted all the special privileges to special interests in the tax code.  You know the big ones - where the 1%ers get to pay about 16% and the smaller incomes pay more!
It is a government granted subsidy TO those CEO's that WE get to subsidize.

16%?  Must be a typo.  I didn't think your keyboard had a "6" on it.  Did you ever figure out your overall Federal Income Tax rate.  Tax paid divided by AGI?  Do you take advantage of a 401K or any tax deferred or pre-tax savings or health benefits?  If you have a 401K, does your company match any of your contributions (which don't show as taxable income)?  Unless you are a secret 1%er, the personal exemption and standard deduction are a lot more significant to your tax paid than to someone making really BIG bucks.  Calculate your Federal Income Tax rate based on your gross salary. 

Assuming you are not a secret 1%er, how much do you think your salary will be raised by taxing the super rich more?  Do you really think your taxes will go down?

In the future, consider this response as TAX_RESPONSE_7.  It will be kind of like at work when someone says Joke_7.  Everyone knows what the lines are but time is saved by not actually saying them.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 08:33:40 AM
National defense is a whole different thing from national offense - which is what we have practiced for way too long!

Do you think we should have just taken it on the chin after 911?  Don't worry about Al Qaeda.  They are just a fly in the soup and will go away after a small drink and a few laps of backstroke around the bowl.

Iraq is a separate issue.  There were obviously mistakes made but the decision was not unilaterally made by George W Bush.  Time will be the judge of whether or not any good came out of invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.  We all know what he did and was doing, no reason to write details here except I need to say that offering a $10,000 payment to the families of suicide bombers is not a good way to promote World Peace.

Time will also tell whether our assistance in Libya ultimately results in a better place for Libyans.  Their perception of a better place may be different than ours.

Just heard David Stockman on NPR. Reagan's former budget director. Hold tight, this might be a little difficult for some tender conservative egos. He is against the temporary payroll tax, not because it doesn't create jobs, but simply because our country needs the money. Here was the surprise though. He says the top incomes in America need to be taxed at a higher rate for the same reason. His reasoning is sound of course and his credentials are good. He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level. Reagan's brains speaking out the truth because his job is no longer in danger.

Meanwhile the Republican guests on the show continued to re-iterate that it is such a small benefit and since they are sure it created no jobs it must be cancelled and, of course, we must never increase the taxes on 1%. Apparently they expect the money coming from the payroll tax increases will suffice.

Quote from: AquaMan on December 07, 2011, 10:21:11 AM
Just heard David Stockman on NPR. Reagan's former budget director. Hold tight, this might be a little difficult for some tender conservative egos. He is against the temporary payroll tax, not because it doesn't create jobs, but simply because our country needs the money. Here was the surprise though. He says the top incomes in America need to be taxed at a higher rate for the same reason. His reasoning is sound of course and his credentials are good. He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level. Reagan's brains speaking out the truth because his job is no longer in danger.

Meanwhile the Republican guests on the show continued to re-iterate that it is such a small benefit and since they are sure it created no jobs it must be cancelled and, of course, we must never increase the taxes on 1%. Apparently they expect the money coming from the payroll tax increases will suffice.

Money from the payroll tax, (called that so people forget that it is supposed to fund their Social Security and Medicare benefits and make it just sound like a tax on the poor) should be funding Social Security and Medicare. 

"He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level."  My guess is that most of the people that want that level of government expect someone else to pay for it. The AGI of the top 1% in 2009 was $1.326 Trillion.  ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 , see table 3)  The 99%ers are going to have to pay something.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 08:27:37 AM
And yet, in spite of all that obstructionism, the economy has been booming along (thanks to Big Banks making their extra hundreds of billions and doling out the huge bonuses to executives!)
And even a few of the 99% are seeing a slight improvement.

I have no sympathy for the banks.  My CDs (savings, not music) aren't making any interest to speak of.  Banks are getting money at 0% or near 0% from the Fed (I believe) so there is no incentive to pay me anything for the money they are borrowing from me.  I have taken my money out of the lowest paying banks (Bank of America, BOK, Citizens Security Bank) and put it in a few Credit Unions I have joined when working for different employers over the years. 

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 08:32:12 AM
And the obstructionism surrounding that?  When anyone with even less than half a brain understands that those tax cuts are what have made this situation, created by out of control banks, worse.  And that ending those cuts along with cutting spending IS the answer.

Ending all the cuts will hurt the very people you are trying to help.  Ending only the cuts on the super wealthy is largely symbolic.  Anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see that. You must have killed too many brain cells over the years.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 10:04:46 AM
16%?  Must be a typo.  I didn't think your keyboard had a "6" on it.  Did you ever figure out your overall Federal Income Tax rate.  Tax paid divided by AGI?  Do you take advantage of a 401K or any tax deferred or pre-tax savings or health benefits?  If you have a 401K, does your company match any of your contributions (which don't show as taxable income)?  Unless you are a secret 1%er, the personal exemption and standard deduction are a lot more significant to your tax paid than to someone making really BIG bucks.  Calculate your Federal Income Tax rate based on your gross salary. 

Assuming you are not a secret 1%er, how much do you think your salary will be raised by taxing the super rich more?  Do you really think your taxes will go down?

In the future, consider this response as TAX_RESPONSE_7.  It will be kind of like at work when someone says Joke_7.  Everyone knows what the lines are but time is saved by not actually saying them.

First, I don't ever expect or hope for my taxes to go down.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would love nothing better than for them to double every year.  Because that means I am doing WAY better every year.

Yes, I have calculated my real rate and it is way too much more than 16%.  Too damn much compared to the breaks the 1%ers get.  Yeah, we got the 401K farces just like everyone else, and I get into that as much as possible.  Also use a Roth every chance I get - better for further on.  No, I am not a 1%er.  I want to be very much and am always working hard in that direction (see first comment on taxes).

Personal exemption and standard deduction are very nice.  Makes a difference.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 10:17:46 AM
Do you think we should have just taken it on the chin after 911?  Don't worry about Al Qaeda.  They are just a fly in the soup and will go away after a small drink and a few laps of backstroke around the bowl.

Iraq is a separate issue.  There were obviously mistakes made but the decision was not unilaterally made by George W Bush.  Time will be the judge of whether or not any good came out of invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.  We all know what he did and was doing, no reason to write details here except I need to say that offering a $10,000 payment to the families of suicide bombers is not a good way to promote World Peace.

Time will also tell whether our assistance in Libya ultimately results in a better place for Libyans.  Their perception of a better place may be different than ours.

Never said anything at all like that.  That is the RWRE script masters conditioning you have going there.  Afghanistan was not only justified, but mandatory.  

An "obvious mistake" - yep, I guess that is one way of describing it.  Too bad we got distracted by a bunch of BS related ONLY to relieving some ill-conceived and improperly perceived idea that Daddy had been slighted so we needed to use the full force and might of our military to relieve that slight.  We knew before invading Iraq - at least Daddy Bush understood it, as well as a lot of other people - that the power vacuum left if Saddam was removed would allow the Iranians a way in that they never had before.  And so it came to pass.  As for the argument that the blame can be spread - sure, except for the fact that it was Bush and his cronies who lied to those others to get that consensus.  That's why Colin Powell says that his time there is the biggest embarrassment of his career.

Libya is a different discussion and probably rates it's own thread.  In general, I think it may turn out better.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 11:23:17 AM
Yes, I have calculated my real rate and it is way too much more than 16%. 

Then you must be doing a lot better than I am.  I file single, no dependents, standard deduction and am very close to 16%.  I no longer have any sympathy for you.  (Not that I ever did.  :D)  You need to pay your fair share.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 10:59:17 AM
Ending all the cuts will hurt the very people you are trying to help.  Ending only the cuts on the super wealthy is largely symbolic.  Anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see that. You must have killed too many brain cells over the years.

Everybody IS hurting right now.  Except the 1%ers.  Taking away their preferential treatment will make them howl like babies.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 11:23:17 AM
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would love nothing better than for them to double every year.  Because that means I am doing WAY better every year.

Don't count too heavily on doing WAY better as a precondition on your taxes going up.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 11:38:04 AM
Don't count too heavily on doing WAY better as a precondition on your taxes going up.

Just look at the tables.  I would love to be paying $15 million a year in taxes.  That means I would be grossing about $100 million under the current system.  Two years of that and I am outta here - sitting on a beach on each island of the world for about a month each, then moving to the next one.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 11:40:36 AM
Just look at the tables.  I would love to be paying $15 million a year in taxes.  That means I would be grossing about $100 million under the current system.  Two years of that and I am outta here - sitting on a beach on each island of the world for about a month each, then moving to the next one.

Are you being obstinate or ignorant?  Choose one.

Edit: forgot the "?".

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 10:33:58 AM
Money from the payroll tax, (called that so people forget that it is supposed to fund their Social Security and Medicare benefits and make it just sound like a tax on the poor) should be funding Social Security and Medicare. 

"He laments that since the people have decided they want a certain level of government, it only follows that we should fund that level."  My guess is that most of the people that want that level of government expect someone else to pay for it. The AGI of the top 1% in 2009 was $1.326 Trillion.  ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6 , see table 3)  The 99%ers are going to have to pay something.

Stockman agrees. He also thinks the pain of higher taxes needs to be spread across all levels. So do I. The country needs the money. BTW, AGI is adjusted gross income. Adjusted.

Quote from: AquaMan on December 07, 2011, 12:04:07 PM
BTW, AGI is adjusted gross income. Adjusted.

I know the "A" is for adjusted.  Even my 5 figure salary gets adjusted by approximately 15% for 401K contributions.  The portion of my health care that I pay is paid with pretax dollars.  Although that doesn't adjust my income, I am paying them with full dollars, not 84 cent dollars.  AGI is further adjusted by $5700 for the standard deduction and $3650 for the personal exemption as a single person to get to taxable income.   Married, filing jointly is about twice that deduction. Of course the progressive rates that everyone loves so much put a two earner family in a higher marginal bracket.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 11:30:42 AM
Then you must be doing a lot better than I am.  I file single, no dependents, standard deduction and am very close to 16%.  I no longer have any sympathy for you.  (Not that I ever did.  :D)  You need to pay your fair share.

I am paying my fair share.  And it sounds like yours, too.


You could get a wife and bunch of kids to help with that....

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 11:40:36 AM
Just look at the tables.  I would love to be paying $15 million a year in taxes.  That means I would be grossing about $100 million under the current system.  Two years of that and I am outta here - sitting on a beach on each island of the world for about a month each, then moving to the next one.

Looking the 2009 (last year the IRS sent the book out) tax tables, married filing jointly (I believe you said you are married) with a taxable (Not AGI) income of $100,000 the tax is $17,369.  Adding back in $18,700 (standard deduction and 2 personal exemptions) to get to AGI gives $118,700.  $17,369/$118,700 = .1463, or 14.63%.   You must be raking it in to be well above 16%.  Make yourself a sign saying "My taxable income is well above $100,000 - give me a break" and march around town and see how much sympathy you get.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 01:17:35 PM
Looking the 2009 (last year the IRS sent the book out) tax tables, married filing jointly (I believe you said you are married) with a taxable (Not AGI) income of $100,000 the tax is $17,369.  Adding back in $18,700 (standard deduction and 2 personal exemptions) to get to AGI gives $118,700.  $17,369/$118,700 = .1463, or 14.63%.   You must be raking it in to be well above 16%.  Make yourself a sign saying "My taxable income is well above $100,000 - give me a break" and march around town and see how much sympathy you get.

Neither I, nor any friends or family is looking for any sympathy.  What we are looking for is a future for ours and everyone's grandkids.  And the last 30 years history shows that it isn't getting better the further we go - it IS getting worse!

Because we are NOT part of the 1%ers.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 01:24:23 PM
Because we are NOT part of the 1%ers.

If you are not a top 5%er, you are fast approaching it.  Stop whining.

See Table 7
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 07, 2011, 01:30:33 PM
If you are not a top 5%er, you are fast approaching it.  Stop whining.

See Table 7
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

I'm not whining...are you?



The rumor just arrived - Bob Stoops is being fired this afternoon!  Not sure how true yet, but should be interesting.  Wonder what he's gonna do with that big house?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 07, 2011, 01:36:57 PM
I'm not whining...are you?

Not here.  I don't object too much to what I am paying.  It's a lower percentage than when I first started as an engineer (about 20% then) and I have no problem with the really rich paying more in tax each year than I will earn in my lifetime, even if it is only 15% of their AGI.

hope this helps... ;)

RIP Harry Joe Gannon Morgan!

"I've never seen a President do so little and get away with blaming so many." Conan71 the Bararbarian.... and that's politics!

Unintended consequences.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/years-immigration-raid-iowa-town-feels-poorer-less-133035414.html

Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2011, 11:04:17 PM
To a great degree you're right.  The unemployment rate is inexcusable, and it's been that way for nearly his entire presidency.  Even his proposed legislation has been less than required to put the middle class back on any sort of foundational footing.  Weak sauce in the short and medium term, and even weaker still if we're talking about long term, structural reform.  And no, he hasn't done anything to police or prosecute wrongdoing in the financial sector. 

But the alternative is far far worse.  Nothing I've seen from either Romney or Gingrich suggests that they have anything better to offer.  They're not offering prosecutions or policing of the financial system.  They're not offering anything remotely good for the middle class; in fact everything that's current GOP orthodoxy will reinforce and/or speed up economic inequality.  That's the exactly wrong direction. 

Obama ain't fantastic by a long shot, but given the choice between a slow recovery and a nosedive into political oblivion, I'll take the recovery any day. 

I don't care what Gingrich or Romney is offering at this point, they are candidates and they want votes.  They have no power to act on any promises.

This president still has to try and lead for one more year.  He's been in charge for nearly three years now and he's squandered many opportunities   to bring corporate criminals to justice and to reign in traders and trading practices which affect us all (like the high oil prices we've lived with for going on four years), he's breaking bread with them.  He's a failure but you want to deflect that by making the point that two un-elected candidates for office have nothing to offer either.  Have you simply forgiven Obama of having any sort of responsibility as a leader?  How could you possibly want to re-elect this guy?

Quote from: Teatownclown on December 07, 2011, 02:19:41 PM

hope this helps... ;)

RIP Harry Joe Gannon Morgan!

"I've never seen a President do so little and get away with blaming so many." Conan71 the Bararbarian.... and that's politics!

Love the tag line!  I'm honored!

Quote from: Conan71 on December 07, 2011, 03:11:52 PM
I don't care what Gingrich or Romney is offering at this point, they are candidates and they want votes.  They have no power to act on any promises.

This president still has to try and lead for one more year.  He's been in charge for nearly three years now and he's squandered many opportunities   to bring corporate criminals to justice and to reign in traders and trading practices which affect us all (like the high oil prices we've lived with for going on four years), he's breaking bread with them.  He's a failure but you want to deflect that by making the point that two un-elected candidates for office have nothing to offer either.  Have you simply forgiven Obama of having any sort of responsibility as a leader?  How could you possibly want to re-elect this guy?

Obama has gotten quite a bit done, just not much that you like, and not so much since this latest Congress went into session. It would help if there weren't a cadre of supposed economists out there screaming policy prescriptions at the top of their lungs that just happen to have been disproven by recent events. Me, I'm more upset at the people in Congress who made it their stated goal to deny Obama the opportunity to have a recovery during this term. The President doesn't get to be a dictator, so there's only so much that can be done since Congress won't consent to anything.

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/D/F/4/Negotiating-Table.jpg)

yep

Quote from: nathanm on December 07, 2011, 03:20:09 PM
Obama has gotten quite a bit done, just not much that you like, and not so much since this latest Congress went into session. It would help if there weren't a cadre of supposed economists out there screaming policy prescriptions at the top of their lungs that just happen to have been disproven by recent events. Me, I'm more upset at the people in Congress who made it their stated goal to deny Obama the opportunity to have a recovery during this term. The President doesn't get to be a dictator, so there's only so much that can be done since Congress won't consent to anything.

Out of all that "quite a bit done"...

How many Americans has he gotten back to work?

What has he done in the way of investigating and ensuring another massive collapse of the financial system isn't waiting for future generations (or just around the corner)?

What has he done in the way of a substantive energy policy?

And finally we are back to the "blame Congress for Obama's failed leadership skills".  That really doesn't wash, as somehow, Clinton had a really effective presidency in spite of Newt Gingrich and a pretty solid GOP majority in the House and Senate who were dead-set on running him out of office.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 07, 2011, 04:12:18 PM
Out of all that "quite a bit done"...

Quote
How many Americans has he gotten back to work?

About 3 million. ;)

Quote
What has he done in the way of investigating and ensuring another massive collapse of the financial system isn't waiting for future generations (or just around the corner)?

Dodd-Frank should help, if Congress will ever confirm a head of the CFPB. Broader consumer protection should help prevent banks from making as many dumb mistakes. Our banks are in much better shape than those in Europe and most of the rest of the world. That's partly due to the new regulatory powers granted through that legislation.

I agree that there have not been nearly enough prosecutions for the last turn at the wheel. The DoJ has pretty much decided that the banks should not be penalized for illegally foreclosing on deployed servicemembers or fraudulently recording mortgages or any of the other clear cut violations of law.

Quote
What has he done in the way of a substantive energy policy?

What would you like him to do? You guys are giving him no end of smile for investing in domestic solar production. He's stayed the course on the nuclear front despite the uproar due to Fukushima.

Quote
And finally we are back to the "blame Congress for Obama's failed leadership skills".  That really doesn't wash, as somehow, Clinton had a really effective presidency in spite of Newt Gingrich and a pretty solid GOP majority in the House and Senate who were dead-set on running him out of office.

Leadership skills do not turn a minority into a majority. Not when a good chunk of the Republican caucus is far to the right of their already pretty far to the right Speaker. They are dead set on dismantling the government, as we saw during the debt debacle. Moreover, they have stated outright that they will not pass any legislation Obama supports. What do you want him to do, force a vote at gunpoint? The public voted for this. It's not as if the people they put in Congress were unclear about their intentions. I don't know why you think Obama is a failure for not ignoring the wishes of the public by essentially staging a coup.

tl;dr: http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/ (I prefer the not-PG URL, but it would be rude to post it here)

Quote from: Conan71 on December 07, 2011, 04:12:18 PM
Out of all that "quite a bit done"...

How many Americans has he gotten back to work?

What has he done in the way of investigating and ensuring another massive collapse of the financial system isn't waiting for future generations (or just around the corner)?

What has he done in the way of a substantive energy policy?

And finally we are back to the "blame Congress for Obama's failed leadership skills".  That really doesn't wash, as somehow, Clinton had a really effective presidency in spite of Newt Gingrich and a pretty solid GOP majority in the House and Senate who were dead-set on running him out of office.

How many Americans did George Bush put out of work?

Many more than got work during his term.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 08:18:42 AM

How many Americans did George Bush put out of work?

Military advisorships skyrocketed

Quote from: Conan71 on December 07, 2011, 03:11:52 PM
I don't care what Gingrich or Romney is offering at this point, they are candidates and they want votes.  They have no power to act on any promises.

This president still has to try and lead for one more year.  He's been in charge for nearly three years now and he's squandered many opportunities   to bring corporate criminals to justice and to reign in traders and trading practices which affect us all (like the high oil prices we've lived with for going on four years), he's breaking bread with them.  He's a failure but you want to deflect that by making the point that two un-elected candidates for office have nothing to offer either.  Have you simply forgiven Obama of having any sort of responsibility as a leader?  How could you possibly want to re-elect this guy?

Whoa there.  Not sure where you're getting the superFAIL out of this.  Obama's not done everything I'd like and has missed some opportunities but that's a far far cry from him being a danger to the Republic.  I want to re-elect the guy because he generally shares my concerns and political bent (generally) and the alternative -- whether Romney or Gingrich -- actually will be a danger to the Republic. 

How can you gloss over the ramifications of electing a Republican president at this point?  No matter who gets the primary nod, the core crazies in the GOP will push for policies that roll back our safety nets, will at best enshrine the current economic inequality as a normal state of affairs and at worst speed it up exponentially in a futile attempt to prove to the "job creators" just how much we'll be willing to give away if they'd just start hiring.  Whatever austerity measures they'll be able to cobble together will undoubtedly impoverish more seniors, more of the unemployed, more of the ill and/or crazy, more immigrants, and more of the working poor.  They will also be unable or unwilling to fund our crumbling infrastructure, any sort of education reform, and will entirely roll back Obamacare which -- irony of ironies -- will increase our projected budget deficit by tens of $B's. 

If there's one thing I trust in our politics, it's that the current GOP will absolutely try to get everything on their platform passed and will succeed on doing a lot of those things.  If they do one thing well, it's execute.  The sad fact is that most of those things will dismantle what's left of our country as we know it. 

Which presidential candidate was it that got so much mileage out of "Not the time to change horses in midstream"?

Quote from: AquaMan on December 08, 2011, 10:44:00 AM
Which presidential candidate was it that got so much mileage out of "Not the time to change horses in midstream"?

The one that led to our current economic condition?  Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes?

Quote from: we vs us on December 08, 2011, 10:12:38 AM
How can you gloss over the ramifications of electing a Republican president at this point?  No matter who gets the primary nod, the core crazies in the GOP will push for policies that roll back our safety nets, will at best enshrine the current economic inequality as a normal state of affairs and at worst speed it up exponentially in a futile attempt to prove to the "job creators" just how much we'll be willing to give away if they'd just start hiring.  Whatever austerity measures they'll be able to cobble together will undoubtedly impoverish more seniors, more of the unemployed, more of the ill and/or crazy, more immigrants, and more of the working poor.  They will also be unable or unwilling to fund our crumbling infrastructure, any sort of education reform, and will entirely roll back Obamacare which -- irony of ironies -- will increase our projected budget deficit by tens of $B's. 

You forgot kicking puppies.......

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 11:43:50 AM
You forgot kicking puppies.......

Goes without saying

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 11:41:09 AM
The one that led to our current economic condition?  Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes?

I was commenting on how well the phrase works for incumbents. They always use that in one form or another. And it usually works.

And no, we never learn from our mistakes. Thats why Gingrich is doing so well.

Quote from: AquaMan on December 08, 2011, 12:08:57 PM
And no, we never learn from our mistakes.

Then I guess Obama is a shoo-in.


Edit:
Checked shoe-in vs. shoo-in.  The above won.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 11:43:50 AM
You forgot kicking puppies.......

Does any of that sounds wrong to you?

Looks like the bill will pass without the permanent tax hike, and the president will sign it, except the Republicans intend to add a section removing the ban on the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.  In which case the president will not sign the bill.  

The pipeline will add 200,000 new jobs, and that's good, but it is also expected to reduce the speculative price of gasoline indefinitely, which would threaten the presidents support from green initiatives.  It is expected that he will lift the ban after the election, and of course if he is not elected the next president will most certainly lift the ban.

Currently we are shipping that oil by tanker to refineries in Huston, as well as through multiple lateral pipelines.  The Keystone will represent the first dedicated line from Canada, reducing the cost and increasing the safety of transport significantly.  

Next week the Republicans will cave on the Keystone initiative and the bill will be signed.  The strategy is to get the president to reiterate the reasons behind holding up the Keystone to use as further examples of his dedication to his donor base over economic recovery and job creation.  

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 12:44:41 PM
The pipeline will add 200,000 new jobs, and that's good, but it is also expected to reduce the speculative price of gasoline indefinitely, which would threaten the presidents support from green initiatives.  It is expected that he will lift the ban after the election, and of course if he is not elected the next president will most certainly lift the ban.

Currently we are shipping that oil by tanker to refineries in Huston, as well as through multiple lateral pipelines.  The Keystone will represent the first dedicated line from Canada, reducing the cost and increasing the safety of transport significantly.    

An NPR story about this pipeline said it'd solve the glut of oil problem we have here in the area (Cushing).  This would significantly raise our gas prices in Oklahoma.  So OK environmentalists should be pleased about the pipeline if you're right.

Quote from: Townsend on December 08, 2011, 01:02:27 PM
An NPR story about this pipeline said it'd solve the glut of oil problem we have here in the area (Cushing).  This would significantly raise our gas prices in Oklahoma.  So OK environmentalists should be pleased about the pipeline if you're right.

Environmentalists should also be pleased because it would reduce the need to load tankers coming from northern British Columbia, through the Panama Canal and up the gulf to turn around and do it again, and again, and again, burning millions of tons of diesel.

Environmentalists wil not be happy though.  If they were happy, we wouldn't' call them environmentalists.

Why do you always feel the need to speak for others?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 01:24:50 PM
Environmentalists should also be pleased because it would reduce the need to load tankers coming from northern British Columbia, through the Panama Canal and up the gulf to turn around and do it again, and again, and again, burning millions of tons of diesel.

Environmentalists wil not be happy though.  If they were happy, we wouldn't' call them environmentalists.

Costs about $1.05 to move a barrel of oil from Houston to New York harbor by pipeline.
http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000391720.cfm

Costs around .90 to 1.25 to transport a barrel by tanker ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

Pretty competitive either way.  Can be really bad news for either the ocean or the Ogallala aquifer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

But we wouldn't expect you to care about that at all.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 01:43:39 PM
Costs about $1.05 to move a barrel of oil from Houston to New York harbor by pipeline.
http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000391720.cfm

Costs around .90 to 1.25 to transport a barrel by tanker ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

Pretty competitive either way.  Can be really bad news for either the ocean or the Ogallala aquifer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

But we wouldn't expect you to care about that at all.

We already have several aging pipelines that cross the aquifer.  My neighbor is a pilot who gets paid to fly them all the time (as required by law) to spot leaks,seeps, encroachments, damage, and other dangers. Construction of the Keystone would make several of these "grey."  The unused lines would then be sold to telecommunications companies for fibre.

There is currently no environmental argument beyond what the green lobby sees as a threat to the cost of wind and solar initiatives.  Any effort that will make conventional energy cheaper will make alternative energy less competitive. The project will not gain support from the left, even if the construction of the pipeline increases the overall safety of our energy production system.

The overall goal (of the green lobby) is to make the production of fossil fuel more expensive or at least as expensive as alternative and future energy sources.  I would like to see a day, and it will come, when solar, wind, and hydro are less expensive than archaic fossil fuel sources, but to artificially manipulate that negatively affects our economy, and threatens our safety.

(http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines_map.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 01:58:04 PM
We already have several aging pipelines that cross the aquifer.  My neighbor is a pilot who gets paid to fly them all the time (as required by law) to spot leaks,seeps, encroachments, damage, and other dangers. Construction of the Keystone would make several of these "grey."  The unused lines would then be sold to telecommunications companies for fibre.

That map shows a very small subset of all the pipelines running through the area.  There are many more.

And don't forget the motivator here that if they know there is gonna be a new pipeline, that means they don't have to worry about maintaining the old ones as much.  The industry has a well entrenched and strongly motivated "don't ask, don't tell" policy of it's own with respect to inspection and maintenance of pipelines - and even related to inspection upon installation of new gas pipelines (the plastic ones).  If they don't run a pig and check it out, then they can say they didn't know....after it blows up and tears up some countryside.  It's what 'plausible deniability' is all about.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 02:19:15 PM
That map shows a very small subset of all the pipelines running through the area.  There are many more.

These are just the big ones. 

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 12:44:41 PM
Looks like the bill will pass without the permanent tax hike, and the president will sign it, except the Republicans intend to add a section removing the ban on the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.  In which case the president will not sign the bill.  

Oh, jesus, the Keystone Pipeline isn't "banned." It's being rerouted. Stop lying.

We now have the president's response:

""However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/08/obama_more_jobs_created_by_unemployment_insurance_than_by_keystone.html

Way to go Mr. President!  Unemployment creates more jobs than. . .jobs.  You and Nanna should get a room.

And Gaspar once again proves he either can't do basic arithmetic or doesn't know when one should apply it.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
Oh, jesus, the Keystone Pipeline isn't "banned." It's being rerouted. Stop lying.

Wrong and wrong. The only place they have agreed to re-route is in Nebraska and that's old news.

By the end of this year the EPA and other agencies were supposed to rule on if the pipeline was in the "national interest" to construct.  All indications were that the pipeline was to be approved without challenge. This would allow them to proceed on the licensing and engineering. In November President Obama suspended the agencies rulings until 2013.  

The pipeline will be approved, we've already sunk a ton of money and research into it.  The delay is political, which makes it even more stinky.  

On November 10, four days after twelve thousand people encircled the White House, culminating the months of protests, President Obama announced "the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review".

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 02:48:27 PM
 The delay is political, which makes it even more stinky.  

On November 10, four days after twelve thousand people encircled the White House, culminating the months of protests, President Obama announced "the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review".

By "political" do you mean that enough people said they're against it that the "government for the people" might've taken a moment to listen?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 08:18:42 AM

How many Americans did George Bush put out of work?

Many more than got work during his term.

Still in blame Bush mode.  FAIL!

Blaming Bush doesn't create jobs.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 08, 2011, 03:34:22 PM
Still in blame Bush mode.  FAIL!

Blaming Bush doesn't create jobs.

Blah, blah, blah...just like Bush blaming Clinton for 8 years didn't mean anything either.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 02:48:27 PM
Wrong and wrong. The only place they have agreed to re-route is in Nebraska and that's old news.

By the end of this year the EPA and other agencies were supposed to rule on if the pipeline was in the "national interest" to construct.  All indications were that the pipeline was to be approved without challenge. This would allow them to proceed on the licensing and engineering. In November President Obama suspended the agencies rulings until 2013.

Nice how you so quickly contradict yourself. You tell me I'm wrong in saying that you lied when you said the pipeline was banned, yet you yourself then state that it's delayed, not banned. That's freakin' hilarious.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 03:39:56 PM
Nice how you so quickly contradict yourself. You tell me I'm wrong in saying that you lied when you said the pipeline was banned, yet you yourself then state that it's delayed, not banned. That's freakin' hilarious.

You're right, I fell for the media hype.  They are calling it the "Keystone Ban" but it's actually just a campaign delay.

But it is also facing other obstacles that are a bit more insidious than what we see in the media. The oil produced in the oil sands region is what is known as "Synthetic Oil."  That doesn't mean it's actually synthetic, that just means it is recovered from sedimentary structures and has almost no sulfur and an API of about 30.  This makes it extremely clean and free from many of the polluting components.

This type of oil is very desirable for fuel and does not produce much of the byproducts in refining as heaver oil such as that recovered from deep sea wells and most mid-eastern terrestrial production.  This makes it cheap to refine and very valuable.

Currently, Canada is shipping much of this crude to Venezuela for refining, and Chavez is then selling the fuel to us.

In fact, The Keystone poses such a threat to Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia that they are spending unknown amounts on lobby efforts to stop it from multiple angles. Several months ago, a number of shipments of heavy mining equipment was stopped at the US/Canadian border because complaints were lodged that the transport of the equipment was blocking roads and making travel difficult for motorists. This delay was devastating on the project.  When the complaints were finally investigated it was found that the majority of letters, emails and calls to Montana and Idaho's highway department originated in Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

I assume the money pumped in to much of the effort to slow or stop the pipeline emanates from these same sources.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
You're right, I fell for the media hype. 

But it is also facing other obstacles that are a bit more insidious than what we see in the media. The oil produced in the oil sands region is what is known as "Synthetic Oil."  That doesn't mean it's actually synthetic, that just means it is recovered from sedimentary structures and has almost no sulfur and an API of about 30.  This makes it extremely clean and free from many of the polluting components.

You knew perfectly well what was going on. I'm not going to speculate further about your motives.

The "oil" produced from the tar sands has an extremely low eROI. It takes more energy to get the tar out and turn it into useful oil than it does to make oil from turkey offal. Using it for fuel is beyond stupid. It's much more useful as raw materials to be turned into fertilizer and plastic. Moreover, despite the enormous volume of recoverable oil, it can't be recovered quickly enough to make up for the declines in existing oil fields. It's like trying to get oil in Oklahoma these days. Sure, there's still plenty there, but it takes a lot of effort to get a small trickle. You nothing-but-oil guys are like a Quaalude addict not believing that all the Quaalude factories are being shut down and refusing to move the hell on.

Such refusal to consider the future is going to cause Tulsa to shrivel up and die in the next hundred years along with the oil and gas industries.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 03:53:46 PM
You knew perfectly well what was going on. I'm not going to speculate further about your motives.

The "oil" produced from the tar sands has an extremely low eROI. It takes more energy to get the tar out and turn it into useful oil than it does to make oil from turkey offal. Using it for fuel is beyond stupid. It's much more useful as raw materials to be turned into fertilizer and plastic. Moreover, despite the enormous volume of recoverable oil, it can't be recovered quickly enough to make up for the declines in existing oil fields. It's like trying to get oil in Oklahoma these days. Sure, there's still plenty there, but it takes a lot of effort to get a small trickle. You nothing-but-oil guys are like a Quaalude addict not believing that all the Quaalude factories are being shut down and refusing to move the hell on.

Such refusal to consider the future is going to cause Tulsa to shrivel up and die in the next hundred years along with the oil and gas industries.

I don't know that I need to respond to this, but what the heck. . .

Are you trying to imply that Synthetic and light sweet crude are worse than heavy crude?

Never mind.   :)

No, I'm stating outright that it takes nearly as much energy to extract the oil from the tar sands as we get from the oil when we burn it. This has zero to do with the amount of sulfur in the oil. Surely you're familiar with the concept of eROI?

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 04:02:37 PM
No, I'm stating outright that it takes nearly as much energy to extract the oil from the tar sands as we get from the oil when we burn it. This has zero to do with the amount of sulfur in the oil. Surely you're familiar with the concept of eROI?

It does not.  It's now about 43% of Canada's total oil production and they use the hot water separation method. The market dictates the return.  When the return no longer exists, nether will the market.  The oil is essentially strip mined from soil that will not sustain life.  After the mining process the bitumen and petroleum is removed and the clean soil is returned to the land.

I don't know how you could make an energy endeavor any more environmentally friendly, unless we find some endangered snail that lives on toxic bitumen who's habitat we are destroying (I assure you someone is looking for such a creature) than processing oil sand is a good thing don't you think?

There are several other areas off the coast of California, and along the north coast of alaska where billions of gallons of oil naturally seeps into sand, sediment and water.  Why is is a bad thing to use this resource and in the process create a less toxic environment?  Seems like a better option than drilling a bunch of wells just because it's cheaper, plus there are an estimated 400 years of low sulfur, low paraffin oil there.  It's almost like God said "Hey, here's some oil, and while you're at it, clean the place up!"

;)

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 03:53:46 PM
You knew perfectly well what was going on. I'm not going to speculate further about your motives.

The "oil" produced from the tar sands has an extremely low eROI. It takes more energy to get the tar out and turn it into useful oil than it does to make oil from turkey offal. Using it for fuel is beyond stupid. It's much more useful as raw materials to be turned into fertilizer and plastic. Moreover, despite the enormous volume of recoverable oil, it can't be recovered quickly enough to make up for the declines in existing oil fields. It's like trying to get oil in Oklahoma these days. Sure, there's still plenty there, but it takes a lot of effort to get a small trickle. You nothing-but-oil guys are like a Quaalude addict not believing that all the Quaalude factories are being shut down and refusing to move the hell on.

Such refusal to consider the future is going to cause Tulsa to shrivel up and die in the next hundred years along with the oil and gas industries.

Glad to see you know more about the oil industry than people in the oil industry know about it.  Maybe I should start listening to you instead of the oil company execs I had lunch with today.  You seem far better versed on the topic than they do.

Never a dull moment in Nate's household, I suspect.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 08, 2011, 04:20:32 PM
Glad to see you know more about the oil industry than people in the oil industry know about it.  Maybe I should start listening to you instead of the oil company execs I had lunch with today.  You seem far better versed on the topic than they do.

Never a dull moment in Nate's household, I suspect.

What do you expect?

(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJJJH1vjA5V7UAeMGDb5UhZtQoC_agPOIDSFTtfi900xhYmhrf)

pancakes? You can reason this out yourself.

Conventional oil well: Drill hole in ground, frack, get oil.

Tar Sands: Drill hole in ground, frack, pump in vast amounts of steam, pump out oil and sand mixture, separate sand from oil, get largely bitumen.
Tar Sands alternative: Dig giant hole in ground, dump the result into a machine that uses vast amounts of steam to separate the sand from oil, again resulting in bitumen.

Afterwards, crack the bitumen into lighter oils to make a saleable product.

Which one requires more energy?

Gaspar, you might note I didn't say jack smile about pollution.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 08, 2011, 04:20:32 PM
Glad to see you know more about the oil industry than people in the oil industry know about it.  Maybe I should start listening to you instead of the oil company execs I had lunch with today.  You seem far better versed on the topic than they do.

Never a dull moment in Nate's household, I suspect.

He has a point.  It is easier to stick a big metal straw in the earth and suck out oil.  Where he gets lost is trying to imply that the return on investment does not exist.

I doubt that oil businesses are just doing this to clean up the landscape out of the kindness of their hearts.  I bet they're making a dollar or two.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 04:44:09 PM
pancakes? You can reason this out yourself.

Conventional oil well: Drill hole in ground, frack, get oil.

Tar Sands: Drill hole in ground, frack, pump in vast amounts of steam, pump out oil and sand mixture, separate sand from oil, get largely bitumen.
Tar Sands alternative: Dig giant hole in ground, dump the result into a machine that uses vast amounts of steam to separate the sand from oil, again resulting in bitumen.

Afterwards, crack the bitumen into lighter oils to make a saleable product.

Which one requires more energy?

Gaspar, you might note I didn't say jack smile about pollution.

Ok.  I'm just trying to figure out what your point is.

Are you upset because the oil companies might not make enough money?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 04:48:30 PM
Are you upset because the oil companies might not make enough money?

No, I'm upset that we're wasting our dwindling stock of oil at the present time. I'm upset that the extra energy spent on this causes the resultant oil to be even worse carbon-wise than coal. It makes no sense to triple down on an outdated technology.

Note I also never said that there was no return on investment. Stop making up stuff.

Straw oil has an eROI of 20 or so these days. Tar sands have an eROI of 6. Making oil from turkey offal is, as I said, better, with an eROI closer to 12. And it's carbon neutral.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 08, 2011, 04:44:27 PM
He has a point.  It is easier to stick a big metal straw in the earth and suck out oil.  Where he gets lost is trying to imply that the return on investment does not exist.

I doubt that oil businesses are just doing this to clean up the landscape out of the kindness of their hearts.  I bet they're making a dollar or two.

I must have opened the curtain on the wizard hit a soft spot.

I sure hope my customers don't figure the return doesn't exist, because they are paying us a smile-pot full of money right now for our expertise on steam extraction.  If Nate understood even 1/2 of the reality of the chemistry and economics of alternative oil extraction, he might be dangerous.  Fortunately, he doesn't even understand half.

Luckily, I can rely upon experts who can count up the amount of energy in a barrel of oil and count up the energy used to extract that oil. I don't have to personally understand the entire process any more than Roosevelt had to go to Los Alamos and put together a nuclear bomb himself.

That a person can make money doing something does not necessarily mean it's a great thing to be doing.

Quote from: we vs us on December 08, 2011, 12:34:40 PM
Does any of that sounds wrong to you?

OK, I'll spell it out for you.  You are spouting the typical left side drivel.  It's kind of like Heiron when he says typical Murdochian RWRE ..... except it's the other side.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 04:02:37 PM
No, I'm stating outright that it takes nearly as much energy to extract the oil from the tar sands as we get from the oil when we burn it.

Kind of like ethanol from corn.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 10:47:26 PM
Kind of like ethanol from corn.

Tar sand oil is slightly better, actually. Ethanol from switchgrass is better than tar sands on the energy front, as it requires much less care and feeding.

Someday, when we have more electricity available than we know what to do with, we can synthesize whatever fuels we need without any concern about eROI. Until then, not so much.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 11:35:20 PM
Someday, when we have more electricity available than we know what to do with, we can synthesize whatever fuels we need without any concern about eROI. Until then, not so much.

I'm just thrilled to see a liberal focused on the profitability and sustainability of the energy industry.

It's a start.

Also, the pipeline will be leased for the transfer of other product as well, so the synthetic oil product that Nate is so worried about the profitability on is not the only product that will be diverted from tanker vessels. Did you know that oil tankers burn bunker fuel, because their emissions are not regulated as deeply as automobiles and just 16 of these tankers produce as much pollution as 800 million cars, according to the international Maritime Organization. That's about all of the cars in the world!

Currently about 65 tankers are used to transport landlocked Alberta's oil products from the Burrand inlet around the world.  The Keystone pipeline could eliminate the need for more than half of these tankers, so it would basically be like eliminating the equivalent emissions of all of the automobiles in the world. . .twice.

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 11:35:20 PM
Tar sand oil is slightly better, actually. Ethanol from switchgrass is better than tar sands on the energy front, as it requires much less care and feeding.

And marijuana beats switchgrass by almost 2:1.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 08:11:03 AM
And marijuana beats switchgrass by almost 2:1.

Hard to shove down a pipe. . .

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 03:53:46 PM

You nothing-but-oil guys are like a Quaalude addict not believing that all the Quaalude factories are being shut down and refusing to move the hell on.

Such refusal to consider the future is going to cause Tulsa to shrivel up and die in the next hundred years along with the oil and gas industries.

Nathan, it's like I said earlier - when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

And I would bet you money - or maybe a nice meal at a decent restaurant - that EVERY company "those in denial" work for celebrates and propagandizes the concept of "risk takers" and "thinking outside the box".  I know for a FACT that most of the big oil (Exxon, Shell, Conoco, Citgo - yes, from direct experience) and all the 4 big oil services companies (Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Halliburton, and Weatherford) do indeed use exactly that type of motivational approach.   And yet, we see where the reality is.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Hard to shove down a pipe. . .

And switchgrass is easy??

Quote from: Conan71 on December 08, 2011, 04:20:32 PM
Glad to see you know more about the oil industry than people in the oil industry know about it.  Maybe I should start listening to you instead of the oil company execs I had lunch with today.  You seem far better versed on the topic than they do.

And while you were at lunch with these oil company execs yesterday, did you happen to ask them, if oil is such a critical national security issue, why they are only using about 1/4 of the available leased and proven reserve lands available to them??

Yes, they do know a lot about it.  And are keeping it as secret as possible.  And not producing when and where they could to relieve the severe oil drought we face in this country!  (Irony and satire, by the way, in case some didn't get it.)

Quote from: nathanm on December 08, 2011, 07:10:05 PM
Luckily, I can rely upon experts who can count up the amount of energy in a barrel of oil and count up the energy used to extract that oil. I don't have to personally understand the entire process any more than Roosevelt had to go to Los Alamos and put together a nuclear bomb himself.

That a person can make money doing something does not necessarily mean it's a great thing to be doing.

Actually, it probably would be a good idea if you knew more about the topic before trying to come off as an expert on the topic.  Everyone here  appreciates you are apparently very-well read and know a little about a lot of different things.  This being another that you know a little about.  Ahem.

Name any refined fuel which doesn't require supplemental BTU input to produce a finished product.  Current oil prices makes all sorts of things economically viable which are not at lower per bbl price. 

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 08:35:48 AM
And while you were at lunch with these oil company execs yesterday, did you happen to ask them, if oil is such a critical national security issue, why they are only using about 1/4 of the available leased and proven reserve lands available to them??

Yes, they do know a lot about it.  And are keeping it as secret as possible.  And not producing when and where they could to relieve the severe oil drought we face in this country!  (Irony and satire, by the way, in case some didn't get it.)

I'm sorry, I don't engage in mindless 4th grade liberal patter with my customers like that.

Get rid of trading practices which allow oil to be bought and sold without having to get any grease under the buyer/seller's fingernails and you'd see the price drop overnight.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 08:39:32 AM
Actually, it probably would be a good idea if you knew more about the topic before trying to come off as an expert on the topic.  Everyone here  appreciates you are apparently very-well read and know a little about a lot of different things.  This being another that you know a little about.  Ahem.

Name any refined fuel which doesn't require supplemental BTU input to produce a finished product.  Current oil prices makes all sorts of things economically viable which are not at lower per bbl price. 

As well as making solar and wind massive wins!

Unfortunately, neither have proven practical on a large scale for motor fuels.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 08:44:10 AM
I'm sorry, I don't engage in mindless 4th grade liberal patter with my customers like that.

Get rid of trading practices which allow oil to be bought and sold without having to get any grease under the buyer/seller's fingernails and you'd see the price drop overnight.

Trading - yes, getting rid of that - going back to pre-Reagan - would be excellent start.  As I have mentioned here at least once, and I think maybe a second time over a year ago.


Ahhh...4th grade patter....  kind of like that show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader".  Shows the true depth of the 'stick your head in the sand' approach taken by most people.  I don't blame you - I suspect you were on a sales call, so I absolutely agree that you want on controversy there.  

But when you (the collective 'you' for society as a whole) don't ask those questions outside that venue, you are abdicating one of your responsibilities as a citizen of this country (and maybe the world).  You actively choose to allow a big oil exec to tell you that "oh, my gosh, if we don't drill in ANWR, or we don't drill everywhere in the gulf, or we don't place a Carter's little liver pill under the pillow at night, we will see the collapse of civilization as we know it because we are out of oil".  Which of course is the Big Lie for that industry.

Notice the recent increased hype over the last few months about how much energy we are now producing in the states?  Natural gas, especially.  And all without those extra places that gives these guys w** dreams at night.  So much BS surrounding the topic, and so many people buying into it.  None of whom have even addressed let alone tried to rebut the proposal of using marijuana/hemp/switchgrass as the rational, low cost alternative to drilling more holes in the ground.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 08:51:23 AM
Unfortunately, neither have proven practical on a large scale for motor fuels.

But marijuana/hemp/switchgrass have.

And are.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 08:56:31 AM
But marijuana/hemp/switchgrass have.

And are.

Still not profitable or sustainable yet, but where corn, miscanthus, and "your precious," can produce hundreds of gallons of ethanol per year, new production using algae is producing up to 5,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, and the process is more efficient.  I give it another 10 years. 

It's kinda like solar at this point.  We can't afford to devote 10 acres per person to grow fuel, any more than we can devote 10 acres of solar panels to power an office building. As we become more efficient, and find more efficient methods to produce this energy, the investment will be more sensible.

I'm not sure if you can smoke the algae though, so it may never be a viable energy source to some, nor will it ever be the subject that all threads will point to for some.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 08:56:03 AM
Notice the recent increased hype over the last few months about how much energy we are now producing in the states?  Natural gas, especially.  

Natural gas will either go back to not available or become really expensive.  It has something to do with fracking.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 08:31:57 AM
And switchgrass is easy??

Yep, just run it through a food blender, then add a few ingredients and water to allow fermentation.  Put it in the pipeline for a few days and when it gets to the destination, it's automobile fuel.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2011, 07:28:55 AM
Currently about 65 tankers are used to transport landlocked Alberta's oil products from the Burrand inlet around the world.  The Keystone pipeline could eliminate the need for more than half of these tankers, so it would basically be like eliminating the equivalent emissions of all of the automobiles in the world. . .twice.

Just make the tankers buy carbon credits.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2011, 03:39:13 PM
Blah, blah, blah...just like Bush blaming Clinton for 8 years didn't mean anything either.

Blah, blah, blah...just like Clinton blaming...Oh wait, what ?

Quote from: DolfanBob on December 09, 2011, 10:43:36 AM
Blah, blah, blah...just like Clinton blaming...Oh wait, what ?

One of my bosses told me his predecessor left two letters to be used in an emergency marked first emergency and second emergency.  After a while the first emergency happened so my boss opened the first letter.  It said "Blame everything on your predecessor."    Eventually the second emergency happened so my boss opened the second letter.  It said "Write two letters."

;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 09, 2011, 10:18:53 AM
Yep, just run it through a food blender, then add a few ingredients and water to allow fermentation.  Put it in the pipeline for a few days and when it gets to the destination, it's automobile fuel.

Exactly.  Just like marijuana/hemp, but half as much for the same price.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2011, 09:22:34 AM
Still not profitable or sustainable yet, but where corn, miscanthus, and "your precious," can produce hundreds of gallons of ethanol per year, new production using algae is producing up to 5,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, and the process is more efficient.  I give it another 10 years. 

It's kinda like solar at this point.  We can't afford to devote 10 acres per person to grow fuel, any more than we can devote 10 acres of solar panels to power an office building. As we become more efficient, and find more efficient methods to produce this energy, the investment will be more sensible.

I'm not sure if you can smoke the algae though, so it may never be a viable energy source to some, nor will it ever be the subject that all threads will point to for some.

They would be profitable if done and are already MUCH more sustainable (except corn in both cases).  Precious requires a planter to sow the seeds, a time to wait to let it grown, then a mower to harvest.  Much less infrastructure than corn or algae.  On a par with making hay.  And we make hay for practically nothing.

Algae on the other hand, will have stacks of planters to get the kind of yields you are talking about.  Growing in one plane (like in a pond or salt marsh) will get no where near the yields you are talking about.  Look at the little picture at the top of the page where you got those numbers.  See those racks - that's a tiny bit of the hardware infrastructure needed.  Gotta use comparables....

For everyone else;    http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1591

Algae without all that would STILL be great.  But on a par with the others.  A lot of salt marshes and swamps out there that are totally wasted on a bunch of alligators and birds.

And then we get to "The Script" again...the only argument the naysayers can make is that "We can't afford to devote 10 acres per person to grow fuel, any more than we can devote 10 acres of solar panels to power an office building."  Like anyone has ever made that argument...not.

Nobody in Reality has ever said that any of these alternatives would do the entire job alone.  But that's what the nattering nabobs of negativity would have us believe. 

The alternatives have ALWAYS been advocated, advanced and recommended as alternatives to relieve the use of other forms of energy in the specific areas where they make sense.  If you make 20% of your electricity with solar, and another 20% with wind, that means there are 40% fewer coal plants or nukes or even gas fired plants required.  And cost is a second order effect in the areas that cover the majority of the population.  Just not Oklahoma - we are spoiled with cheap energy.  That's why Germany is doing exactly that - and almost there.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 09, 2011, 10:10:32 AM
Natural gas will either go back to not available or become really expensive.  It has something to do with fracking.

Wanna prediction?  Gonna get it anyway.

Advanced recovery techniques are going to have a huge impact on the Ogallala water supply.  The one that makes the breadbasket of the world possible.  And they won't be good impacts.


Not to mention the increase in earthquakes here in the midsection.

And on an even grander scale - our way of life as we know it will not continue for the "hundreds" of years the oil/gas is supposed to last.  And even if we do switch to massive solar farms, the shading of the earth will cause some effect (cooling?  warming?) that may well (probably will) have some adverse consequence.

And wind power, if it gets to the point of utilization on a truly massive scale, will divert/convert energy that currently performs some work in another area of the biosphere.  Weather?  Maybe it could get to the point of affecting the rotational speed of the planet over a period of time - who knows?  We don't.

And we will rush headlong into whatever it is without due consideration, or even a casual thought toward possible effects.  We already are doing so.  We will be changing our life style, though.  Just how much and how fast are the only questions.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
Wanna prediction?  Gonna get it anyway.

You chose curtain #2, expensive.  (As I expect we all will.)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 11:40:28 AM
The alternatives have ALWAYS been advocated, advanced and recommended as alternatives to relieve the use of other forms of energy in the specific areas where they make sense.  If you make 20% of your electricity with solar, and another 20% with wind, that means there are 40% fewer coal plants or nukes or even gas fired plants required. 

We need an efficient way to store the "electricity" so when the wind is insufficient or it's night time we still have electricity.  Large power plants don't come on line instantly.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 11:21:22 AM
Exactly.  Just like marijuana/hemp, but half as much for the same price.

Until the price of getting busted is included.

;D

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
And we will rush headlong into whatever it is without due consideration, or even a casual thought toward possible effects.  We already are doing so.  We will be changing our life style, though.  Just how much and how fast are the only questions.

There are no side effects from green energy programs.  That's why they are called green.  I am surprised you didn't know that.

;D

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 09, 2011, 12:18:32 PM
There are no side effects from green energy programs.  That's why they are called green.  I am surprised you didn't know that.

;D

Fewer (slightly) and different.  But still there.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 08:39:32 AM
Actually, it probably would be a good idea if you knew more about the topic before trying to come off as an expert on the topic.  Everyone here  appreciates you are apparently very-well read and know a little about a lot of different things.  This being another that you know a little about.  Ahem.

Why would oil execs care about eROI? They (should) care about ROI in dollars; that is their job after all. It's up to the rest of us to stop them from doing something utterly stupid if their plans have a detrimental impact on the bigger picture. I guess where we differ is that I think that capitalism is a great engine for growth and economic development but think it needs outside influence to not overproduce, overconsume, and over-everything else. You seem to subscribe to the theory that whatever makes the most money is what we should be doing. If that captured the external costs of industrial operations, that would be a perfectly reasonable position.

Anyway, "this valve goes to that pipe" isn't necessary for me to know to look at eROI numbers and declare that one of these technologies is not as good as the others. Sorry you think that technical detail is necessary for me to know to make a comment on the efficiency of the process.

Quote from: nathanm on December 09, 2011, 02:26:21 PM
Sorry you think that technical detail is necessary for me to know to make a comment on the efficiency of the process.

On the contrary, we enjoy when you share your expertise on stuff you don't know about.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2011, 02:53:27 PM
On the contrary, we enjoy when you share your expertise on stuff you don't know about.

Yeah, that's not what happened. I never claimed to know the ins and outs of the process, only the basic steps and the eROI calculated by people who do know the process intimately. You seem to have a real problem with the truth the past couple of days? I know a great doctor who can probably help with that, would you like a referral?

Quote from: nathanm on December 09, 2011, 02:57:44 PM
Yeah, that's not what happened. I never claimed to know the ins and outs of the process, only the basic steps and the eROI calculated by people who do know the process intimately. You seem to have a real problem with the truth the past couple of days? I know a great doctor who can probably help with that, would you like a referral?

Boy, you've really got me confused now.  I thought when you said:

QuoteNo, I'm stating outright that it takes nearly as much energy to extract the oil from the tar sands as we get from the oil when we burn it.

that you were making an outright statement that the process costs more than the product yields. I can't imagine where I got that idea.  My apologies.

I also thought you must be an expert on the productivity of light crude because of your proclamation:

QuoteUsing it for fuel is beyond stupid. It's much more useful as raw materials to be turned into fertilizer and plastic. Moreover, despite the enormous volume of recoverable oil, it can't be recovered quickly enough to make up for the declines in existing oil fields.

hey, it's obviously my bad, for assuming you were speaking from a point of experience or expertise. 

Thanks for clarifying, I now understand that your argument was a reactive one, not intended to be a point of debate or analysis.  I am sorry if I made it such.

Does your doctor treat anger issues?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2011, 03:13:32 PM
Boy, you've really got me confused now.  I thought when you said:
that you were making an outright statement that the process costs more than the product yields. I can't imagine where I got that idea.  My apologies.

I also thought you must be an expert on the productivity of light crude because of your proclamation:
hey, it's obviously my bad, for assuming you were speaking from a point of experience or expertise. 

Thanks for clarifying, I now understand that your argument was a reactive one, not intended to be a point of debate or analysis.  I am sorry if I made it such.

Does your doctor treat anger issues?

Yes, in the context of 20-40 units of energy extracted for one unit of energy expended, like we get for straw-in-the-ground oil (depending on distance from source to market) 6 units for 1 unit is not much above break-even. This is true. I do not have to personally be an expert to assert a quantity that has been measured by people who are experts.

Quote from: we vs us on December 08, 2011, 10:12:38 AM
Whoa there.  Not sure where you're getting the superFAIL out of this.  Obama's not done everything I'd like and has missed some opportunities but that's a far far cry from him being a danger to the Republic.  I want to re-elect the guy because he generally shares my concerns and political bent (generally) and the alternative -- whether Romney or Gingrich -- actually will be a danger to the Republic.  

How can you gloss over the ramifications of electing a Republican president at this point?  No matter who gets the primary nod, the core crazies in the GOP will push for policies that roll back our safety nets, will at best enshrine the current economic inequality as a normal state of affairs and at worst speed it up exponentially in a futile attempt to prove to the "job creators" just how much we'll be willing to give away if they'd just start hiring.  Whatever austerity measures they'll be able to cobble together will undoubtedly impoverish more seniors, more of the unemployed, more of the ill and/or crazy, more immigrants, and more of the working poor.  They will also be unable or unwilling to fund our crumbling infrastructure, any sort of education reform, and will entirely roll back Obamacare which -- irony of ironies -- will increase our projected budget deficit by tens of $B's.  

If there's one thing I trust in our politics, it's that the current GOP will absolutely try to get everything on their platform passed and will succeed on doing a lot of those things.  If they do one thing well, it's execute.  The sad fact is that most of those things will dismantle what's left of our country as we know it.  

You're surprised at the reactions you get from a guy who has been virulently anti-Obama from Day One?

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, Conan would be just as anti-Hillary.... so if we had passed HillaryCare, but due to political compromise, the legislation was missing an individual mandate, this same guy (and his political party) would be dominating media coverage and crowing daily about all those "freeloaders" who should be required to carry health insurance...  that's right, and if the passage of ObamaCare didn't contain a requirement to purchased health insurance (the view originally espoused by candidate Obama), these same Republicans would by acclamation solidly support the very same individual  mandate they currently vilify....

But hey, Conan was very supportive of that "Subsidies of the rich and famous" report from Obama, right?
Oh wait.... that was Sen Coburn who wrote it, so it's okay.... but if Obama or any democrat says it, it's "class warfare."

Anyone who supports a tax system that is in any way progressive or based on "ability to pay" is characterized as engaging in "class warfare" against the "job creators"...... and 46.2 million Americans living below the poverty line I suppose are a buncha freeloaders who need to "take a shower and get a job".... all the while we don't hear a peep from our supposedly "liberal mainstream media" about regressive sales taxes on groceries, a payroll tax system that has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus for social security, and a reasonable and popular medicare/medicaid system that keeps a record percentage of our senior citizens out of poverty.  

Geez.

Of course, Conan can then rail against the OWS "entitlement" generation..... when my experience over the course of decades proves to me that the most "entitled" of economic classes in this country are the tribe of people who routinely characterize themselves as "middle class" or "upper middle class" yet make well over double or triple the median household income in this country.... geez, when did claiming you're in the middle class become the equivalent of saying you live in "midtown Tulsa"....?

Go figure.

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 09, 2011, 04:04:42 PM
You're surprised at the reactions you get from a guy who has been virulently anti-Obama from Day One?

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, Conan would be just as anti-Hillary.... so if we had passed HillaryCare, but due to political compromise, the legislation was missing an individual mandate, this same guy (and his political party) would be dominating media coverage and crowing daily about all those "freeloaders" who should be required to carry health insurance...  that's right, and if the passage of ObamaCare didn't contain a requirement to purchased health insurance (the view originally espoused by candidate Obama), these same Republicans would by acclamation solidly support the very same individual  mandate they currently vilify....

But hey, Conan was very supportive of that "Subsidies of the rich and famous" report from Obama, right?
Oh wait.... that was Sen Coburn who wrote it, so it's okay.... but if Obama or any democrat says it, it's "class warfare."

Anyone who supports a tax system that is in any way progressive or based on "ability to pay" is characterized as engaging in "class warfare" against the "job creators"...... and 46.2 million Americans living below the poverty line I suppose are a buncha freeloaders who need to "take a shower and get a job".... all the while we don't hear a peep from our supposedly "liberal mainstream media" about regressive sales taxes on groceries, a payroll tax system that has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus for social security, and a reasonable and popular medicare/medicaid system that keeps a record percentage of our senior citizens out of poverty.  

Geez.

Of course, Conan can then rail against the OWS "entitlement" generation..... when my experience over the course of decades proves to me that the most "entitled" of economic classes in this country are the tribe of people who routinely characterize themselves as "middle class" or "upper middle class" yet make well over double or triple the median household income in this country.... geez, when did claiming you're in the middle class become the equivalent of saying you live in "midtown Tulsa"....?

Go figure.

Your obsession with me is a little creepy as well as completely making up a belief system for me.  You also left out the salient points that I'm a LIAR! and a partisan hack, that's disappointing.  Those are always two of my favorites.  You also left out the points that you supported Obama ever since you used to ride the subways in Chicago.  I'm worried about you in your advancing age you might be losing your edge.

Merry Christmas anyway  :-*

Quote from: Gaspar on December 09, 2011, 02:53:27 PM
On the contrary, we enjoy when you share your expertise on stuff you don't know about.

(http://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ali_knockout.jpg?w=450&h=349)

That would have been a funny picture if I had been doing what he claims I was.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 05:38:22 PM
Your obsession with me is a little creepy as well as completely making up a belief system for me.  You also left out the salient points that I'm a LIAR! and a partisan hack, that's disappointing.  Those are always two of my favorites.  You also left out the points that you supported Obama ever since you used to ride the subways in Chicago.  I'm worried about you in your advancing age you might be losing your edge.

Merry Christmas anyway  :-*

Whatever, dude.

When it comes to presidential politics, you're still a partisan hack who might as well be a lobbyist for the oil industry, an industry that wasn't always part and parcel of the GOP.... http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2012&ind=301  .... your worst partisan hack moments involve your stereotypes of windy city politics you know little/nothing about and implication that Obama is part of the Chicago "machine".... your cutsy joking that I LOVE Obama sooooo much that I blew him on the "el"..... your stereotypes that because I didn't and don't support flat tax dogma and agree with Obama stated policy in moving the top taxation rate back to what it was under Bill Clinton, that I somehow hate rich people... some of these discussions with you and Gas and Gweedo got so stupid, I realized I didn't have any need to waste my time with you folks....  once again, chattering class hyper-partisan claptrap....

Merry Christmas from Ruf and the Obama family.   ;D

Quote from: TulsaRufnex on December 09, 2011, 06:27:48 PM
... your cutsy joking that I LOVE Obama sooooo much that I blew him on the "el".....

When was that?

Page 4 of another useless thread, called "How to Protect Yourself Against Obamacare"  --  Actually, the word used was "groped."  My bad.   ::)

Ruf, when I first started paying any attention to TN, I had lunch with you, RM and Conan downtown at an Italian restaurant (now closed). I was much impressed with each of you and surprised at how well such differing personalities were able to converse with each other. RM gave us each tree seedlings which I duly planted. The trees are now 10ft tall and healthy. I was recovering from a failed business that I took way too personal and it was just good to be around non-judgemental people.

Since that time I have seen each of us become more polarized and hardened in our political views, yet even when I sometimes feel offended by remarks on here, I remember that lunch and the purpose it served in my life at that time and I shuffle off any ill will. All the posts, extreme or well reasoned, snippy or vulgar, are pretty interesting. I now view most of TN and its posters through a different prism. Its entertainment, its enlightenment, its educational, its ego, its preview, its digital comeraderie, its a chance to pontificate and bloviate without someone throwing their drink on you. This place is my chance to step out of my world and see how others exist and why. Your perspective is often shared and always valued.

Merry Christmas from a pointy headed, soft hearted, liberal type.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 10:43:52 PM
OK, I'll spell it out for you.  You are spouting the typical left side drivel.  It's kind of like Heiron when he says typical Murdochian RWRE ..... except it's the other side.

Well, you know, between the widely supported Ryan budget, which would reduce the deficit by hollowing out public service programs for the poor, the elderly, and the unemployed; and his Medicare/Medicaid plan, which would reduce service levels drastically; and the GOP's general hostility to further help for the unemployed; and the anti-immigrant sentiment (enshrined now in several GOP controlled states); and the die-hard support for the Bush tax cuts, which have been the singlemost important driver of our deficit growth during the last decade, and which gives disproportionate tax cuts to the very top of the wealth pyramid; and the general silence on 1) campaign finance reform, 2) Citizens United and 3) regulatory capture by corporate interests, we can pretty much figure out where things would be after a couple years of a Gingrich or Romney admin.  I'm not sure how that's drivel or conspiracy theory.  Most of the folks up for election have supported these things publicly, and in most cases their effects have been estimated and measured by the CBO, which remains our best yardstick for judging policy. 

Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
Well, you know, between the widely supported Ryan budget, which would reduce the deficit by hollowing out public service programs for the poor, the elderly, and the unemployed; and his Medicare/Medicaid plan, which would reduce service levels drastically; and the GOP's general hostility to further help for the unemployed; and the anti-immigrant sentiment (enshrined now in several GOP controlled states); and the die-hard support for the Bush tax cuts, which have been the singlemost important driver of our deficit growth during the last decade, and which gives disproportionate tax cuts to the very top of the wealth pyramid; and the general silence on 1) campaign finance reform, 2) Citizens United and 3) regulatory capture by corporate interests, we can pretty much figure out where things would be after a couple years of a Gingrich or Romney admin.  I'm not sure how that's drivel or conspiracy theory.  Most of the folks up for election have supported these things publicly, and in most cases their effects have been estimated and measured by the CBO, which remains our best yardstick for judging policy. 

QuoteI'm not sure how that's drivel or conspiracy theory.

No surprise.  You buy into the left's premise that every Republican want to starve Granny and return to the late 19th century. 

I recently saw a list of the "Bush tax cuts".  There was stuff in there that benefits people in the middle and lower economic groups.  Cherry picking the items helping the rich and claiming to be ending the Bush tax cuts is deceiving rhetoric.  Eliminating only the cuts for the rich is symbolic in that it would barely make a dent in the deficit.  Of course it would help some, just like some of the other small cuts that are decried as useless in magnitude in curing the deficit problem but happen to benefit chosen programs. Ethanol for fuel subsidies comes to mind as does Solyndra (which appears to not develop new technology which I could support). There has been a lot of spending growth (in addition to the wars) that has contributed to the deficit.  Some of it is mandated.  We need to determine what can be justified.  I'm sure you and I will depart company on individual items that should be cut. There is not enough money in the upper 1% to pay for our present spending.  Pretending there is, is just left side talking points to get votes without fixing the problem.  I chose to use the word drivel.

I can see how you would vehemently object to anything "Citizens United".  I won't claim to support everything they want or do but I don't see them as any worse than someone like Michael Moore.

No one I know believes there should be no regulation by the government.  Finding the cost/benefit ($ not being the only cost) line will always be a point of contention.  Painting the right as being completely anti-regulation is idiotic and childish. (See drivel.)  It's nothing more than trying to get votes by whipping up emotions.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2011, 12:55:55 PM
Painting the right as being completely anti-regulation is idiotic and childish. (See drivel.)  It's nothing more than trying to get votes by whipping up emotions.

Remind me, how many of the House freshmen in 2010 signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge? That is the number that is completely anti-regulation. I would agree that until the Party was taken over by the Randians, there was viable public policy there. (there still is, but it's been sidelined..see Bruce Bartlett and David Frum for examples of reality-based conservatism) But these days, fantasy is apparently reasonable public policy on that side of the aisle, and lying about Obama's record is apparently a viable election strategy.

Quote from: nathanm on December 10, 2011, 04:32:54 PM
Remind me, how many of the House freshmen in 2010 signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge? That is the number that is completely anti-regulation. I would agree that until the Party was taken over by the Randians, there was viable public policy there. (there still is, but it's been sidelined..see Bruce Bartlett and David Frum for examples of reality-based conservatism) But these days, fantasy is apparently reasonable public policy on that side of the aisle, and lying about Obama's record is apparently a viable election strategy.

Never succumb to peer pressure?  I'm sure most of the newbies believe in the tax pledge. That's what got them elected. 

I have not seen anyone say to go to a completely unregulated capitalist society.  Anti-regulation is about where to draw the line and what the regulation is about. 

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 08, 2011, 10:43:52 PM
OK, I'll spell it out for you.  You are spouting the typical left side drivel.  It's kind of like Heiron when he says typical Murdochian RWRE ..... except it's the other side.

I don't spout left wing drivel.  When I say "typical you-know-what", it is just a statement of fact from the extreme moderate position.  Just because the "you-know-who" has been riding high for a few decades, doesn't mean that the LWRE gets off any easier.  As evidenced by my entry into the discussion of the Bill of Rights.  That will continue and will escalate.  Because we are seeing the latest horrendous results of this whole 'gun walking' process - started by Baby Bush and continued under Blowbama.  This activity in not just a terrible tragedy for the families of the agents killed by Blowbama's BS, but is a good old fashioned, down home, honest to God, Biblical Abomination!  And yes, with a capital A!!  No matter which side does it!

Reference that George Carlin clip I presented the link to in another thread.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 11, 2011, 07:50:31 PM
When I say "typical you-know-what", it is just a statement of fact from the extreme moderate position. 

I think you are a bit too generous in your application of "typical you-know-what".  There are times when it does apply but no where near as often as you proclaim it.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2011, 12:55:55 PM
No surprise.  You buy into the left's premise that every Republican want to starve Granny and return to the late 19th century. 

Have you read much about the Ryan plan?  In fact, it does starve Granny.  And it starves the poor, and the unemployed, etc.  He takes a hatchet to every social program we have in order to eliminate the deficit, and does it without touching the tax brackets of the top 1%.  It would be one thing if this were just one of many suggestions by the GOP caucus for dealing with our federal debt, but this is and has been the ONLY thing the current GOP has suggested, time and time again.  Not only has the GOP put it up for several votes but they've tried to shoehorn individual pieces of the Ryan plan into other budget negotiations.  Likewise, all of the GOP presidential candidates have come out in favor of it.  While Conan may prefer not to hold any of the candidates to their promises or pledges, supporting something publicly really does have significance.  So, whether you personally agree or not, your party has very specifically come out in support of deep deep cuts in social programs while leaving some of the richest folks (and industries, and rightie governmental interest groups, like defense) alone.  You think that's lefty spin but I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to see it. 

And the Citizen's United I'm referring to is the court case decided by the Supreme court a year or so ago -- not the organization itself -- that for all intents and purposes gave organizations (and corporations, and unions) a mostly unlimited right to free speech in the political arena, which means that organizations now can donate a much larger sum of money to campaigns. 

Quote from: we vs us on December 12, 2011, 09:30:10 AM
Have you read much about the Ryan plan? 

I just spent some time reading it as presented by the source, not as interpreted by a hostile news outlet.  It appears to have protections for granny.  I didn't read every detail so if you can quote something from the actual plan, I'll give it a closer look.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 12, 2011, 12:26:41 PM
I just spent some time reading it as presented by the source, not as interpreted by a hostile news outlet.  It appears to have protections for granny.  I didn't read every detail so if you can quote something from the actual plan, I'll give it a closer look.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

You do understand that your interpretation is not important, right?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 12, 2011, 01:04:43 PM
You do understand that your interpretation is not important, right?

I know that but I still have to try.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 12, 2011, 01:23:24 PM
I know that but I still have to try.

(http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/graphics/2003/07/graphics/lalalala.gif)

Quote from: Gaspar on December 12, 2011, 01:33:28 PM
(http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/graphics/2003/07/graphics/lalalala.gif)

Who are you talking to?  Or just couldn't resist posting a snarky gif?



I'll be happy to re-evaluate my opinion of the Ryan budget if the facts warrant it.

Quote from: we vs us on December 12, 2011, 01:36:24 PM
I'll be happy to re-evaluate my opinion of the Ryan budget if the facts warrant it.

I'm sure there are areas that you still won't like.  Eliminating tax on capital gains, savings interest, and I believe investment returns (I'm having a Rick Perry moment) will probably go against your principles.  Never mind that one of the biggest capital gains tax reductions occurred when President Clinton approved the change to the capital gains tax on the sale of a home.  If interest rates on savings ever come up, having the interest on savings being tax free would help everyone not living from paycheck to paycheck.

There are some things that may address your goals but try to achieve them by different methods than you would propose.

In the tax area, the plan does not raise rates on the rich.  Instead, the plan calls for eliminating special considerations typically employed by the rich but generally unavailable to the rest of us. This would raise their taxes without raising the marginal rates.  The effect should help meet your goals of making the rich pay more.

Social Security would offer options, still within government regulation and protection.  The lowest economic groups would have benefits at some multiple above the established poverty level.

Job training is addressed.

People over 55 will keep the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits as presently promised.  The retirement age will gradually be raised to 70.  Early retirement will still be allowed.  The plan presentation I linked to states the the average male life expectancy when Social Security was started was 60.  Clearly, the average person was not actually expected to receive any benefits.  Life expectancy is now in the 70s.  There were always curve breakers like my dad's parents that lived into their 90s.  There were also folks like my mom's dad who died young and mom's mother that only made it to her late 60s.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2011, 09:33:47 PM
I think you are a bit too generous in your application of "typical you-know-what".  There are times when it does apply but no where near as often as you proclaim it.

Au contraire'...

There are times to apply it far in excess of when I use it.  As there are with the LWRE.  But I like to mix it up a little bit...use some imagination...use other terms for the same thing...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2011, 02:22:47 PM
There are times to apply it far in excess of when I use it. 

Only if you count issues that you are not commenting on.  Of the issues you post about, I stand by my statement that you use "it" too often.

Quote from: Red Arrow on December 12, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
Only if you count issues that you are not commenting on.  Of the issues you post about, I stand by my statement that you use "it" too often.

Too much is NEVER enough!

And,
Anything worth doing is worth overdoing!


(Remember Brewster McCloud?)

By their definition doesn't his mean that the Republican house voted to raise taxes?

QuoteHouse Republicans voted today to reject a bipartisan Senate-passed bill for a two-month extension of a popular payroll tax cut, demanding a formal conference to work out their differences instead. ..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/payroll-tax-credit-headed-for-stalemate/?abcnews (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/payroll-tax-credit-headed-for-stalemate/?abcnews)

Quote from: Townsend on December 20, 2011, 01:49:35 PM
By their definition doesn't his mean that the Republican house voted to raise taxes?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/payroll-tax-credit-headed-for-stalemate/?abcnews (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/payroll-tax-credit-headed-for-stalemate/?abcnews)

Yep, Grover Norquist is going to be rapping some knuckles over that one.

Even the WSJ takes on lousy political leadership from the Teabagger/GOP Party....


THE GOP'S PAYROLL TAX FIASCO

How did Republicans manage to lose the tax issue to Obama?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110573867064702.html


GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected. Given how he and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the payroll tax debate, we wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest.

The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play.

Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he's spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.

House Republicans yesterday voted down the Senate's two-month extension of the two-percentage-point payroll tax holiday to 4.2% from 6.2%. They say the short extension makes no economic sense, but then neither does a one-year extension. No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year's tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.

Their first mistake was adopting the President's language that he is proposing a tax cut rather than calling it a temporary tax holiday. People will understand the difference—and discount the benefit.

Republicans also failed to put together a unified House and Senate strategy. The House passed a one-year extension last week that included spending cuts to offset the $120 billion or so in lost revenue, such as a one-year freeze on raises for federal employees. Then Mr. McConnell agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the two-month extension financed by higher fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (meaning on mortgage borrowers), among other things. It passed with 89 votes and all but seven Republicans.

Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension, but House Members revolted over the weekend and so the Speaker flipped within 24 hours. Mr. Boehner is now demanding that Mr. Reid name conferees for a House-Senate conference on the payroll tax bills. But Mr. Reid and the White House are having too much fun blaming Republicans for "raising taxes on the middle class" as of January 1. Don't be surprised if they stretch this out to the State of the Union, when Mr. Obama will have a national audience to capture the tax issue.

If Republicans didn't want to extend the payroll tax cut on the merits, then they should have put together a strategy and the arguments for defeating it and explained why.

But if they knew they would eventually pass it, as most of them surely believed, then they had one of two choices. Either pass it quickly and at least take some political credit for it.

Or agree on a strategy to get something in return for passing it, which would mean focusing on a couple of popular policies that would put Mr. Obama and Democrats on the political spot. They finally did that last week by attaching a provision that requires Mr. Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, and the President grumbled but has agreed to sign it.

But now Republicans are drowning out that victory in the sounds of their circular firing squad. Already four GOP Senators have rejected the House position, and the political rout will only get worse.

One reason for the revolt of House backbenchers is the accumulated frustration over a year of political disappointment. Their high point was the Paul Ryan budget in the spring that set the terms of debate and forced Mr. Obama to adopt at least the rhetoric of budget reform and spending cuts.

But then Messrs. Boehner and McConnell were gulled into going behind closed doors with the President, who dragged out negotiations and later emerged to sandbag them with his blame-the-GOP and soak-the-rich re-election strategy. Any difference between the parties on taxes and spending has been blurred in the interim.

After a year of the tea party House, Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have had to make no major policy concessions beyond extending the Bush tax rates for two years. Mr. Obama is in a stronger re-election position today than he was a year ago, and the chances of Mr. McConnell becoming Majority Leader in 2013 are declining.

***
At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.

Payroll tax cut: Two GOP frosh bail, push for two-month bill


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70794.html#ixzz1hIXvIHTL (http://read%20more:%20http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70794.html#ixzz1hIXvIHTL)

Quote
Rep. Rick Crawford, an Arkansas Republican, called on Speaker Boehner "to let the House vote on extending the payroll tax holiday" in a carefully worded letter Thursday that made clear some Republicans are ready to compromise. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), a high profile member of the influential Republican freshman class, also issued a statement Thursday pushing for a quick vote on a short term extension.

"These past few days I have met with my constituents in Arkansas's First District, they are angry and they don't understand why Congress cannot sit down, hammer out our differences, and have a solution that we all can support. My constituents are good, honest people who deserve a Congress that will put partisan politics aside in favor of the greater good."

Crawford's statement was careful not to bash Republican leaders, noting that the House passed a "responsible" year-long deal in December and arguing that compromise was the only way forward. But it left wiggle room to portray the lawmaker as responsible while his leadership is Washington is taking the heat over the last minute showdown.

Two freshmen bailing on the party message doesn't add up to a trend, but it's a sign that even some of the idealistic new members of the Republican class are ready to cut a deal.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70794.html#ixzz1hIYGO8eD

AP breaking tweet:

BREAKING: Congressional aides: House GOP to accept short-term payroll tax cut measure.

Quote from: Townsend on December 22, 2011, 03:08:54 PM
AP breaking tweet:

BREAKING: Congressional aides: House GOP to accept short-term payroll tax cut measure.

Maybe I am just not getting the right words on a google search (or maybe I'm a dumb@ss), but is this an "across the board" payroll cut extension? Or, is limited to certain income ranges?

Quote from: guido911 on December 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
Maybe I am just not getting the right words on a google search (or maybe I'm a dumb@ss), but is this an "across the board" payroll cut extension? Or, is limited to certain income ranges?

Sorry, all I got was the tweet.  I'll let you know if I see something to give you an answer.

Quote from: Townsend on December 22, 2011, 03:17:56 PM
Sorry, all I got was the tweet.  I'll let you know if I see something to give you an answer.

Don't kill yourself. I am going to keep looking around.

Quote from: guido911 on December 22, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Don't kill yourself. I am going to keep looking around.

All I'm finding is a bunch of political BS.  Shocker.

Here's something. It seems like all that pay payroll taxes are impacted.

QuoteWithout action, the payroll tax paid by 160 million workers will rise by 2 percentage points to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1. That would mean $1,000 a year less in the pockets of people making $50,000, or about $19 weekly. In addition, 3 million people currently receiving long-term jobless benefits will begin to lose weekly payments that average under $300 — for many, their only support.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-congress-payroll-tax-cut-073003594.html

I think the word the media is using to describe what the Teabagger/GOP hoods have done is "CAVE." :D

I guess now they can blast Obummer for taking off and going to Hawaii... I hope he makes it his western White House second term. The time change might make things quieter. And it's 2012 so it might just be safe harbor.

So did they approve the 12 month extension that President Obama asked for, or the 2 month extension that the Senate Democrats wanted?

The good new is that the pipeline is a GO!

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 03:49:26 PM
The good new is that the pipeline is a GO!

Didn't see that yet.  I'm hearing mostly bad for the pipeline.  Why is it a good thing?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 03:48:01 PM
So did they approve the 12 month extension that President Obama asked for, or the 2 month extension that the Senate Democrats wanted?

2 month.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 03:48:01 PM
So did they approve the 12 month extension that President Obama asked for, or the 2 month extension that the Senate Democrats wanted?

The 12 month was wanted by the house speaker.  The 2 month was agreed on by the Senate republicans and democrats.

Where'd you get your info?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-22-16-41-52 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-22-16-41-52)

QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) -- In an abrupt about-face, House Republican leaders Thursday agreed to a two-month extension of a Social Security payroll tax cut and federal unemployment benefits, GOP aides said.

The move reflects a bowing to demands by the Senate and President Barack Obama and appears to all but assure 160 million workers aren't hit by a 2 percentage point increase in the payroll tax on Jan. 1.

It also would renew jobless benefits for almost 2 million people without jobs for more than six months and spare doctors from a big cut in Medicare payments. House Republicans were to hold a telephone conference call on the developments later Thursday.

House Republicans balked at the bipartisan Senate bill earlier this week, and their leaders, as recently as Thursday morning, had insisted that the Senate begin talks on a one-year measure passed by the House last week. The Senate passed a 2-month extension on Saturday.

The decision came swiftly after the top Republican in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, urged the House to accept a short-term measure.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 03:49:26 PM
The good new is that the pipeline is a GO!

Can you source that?

Quote from: guido911 on December 22, 2011, 04:04:30 PM
Can you source that?

They agreed to sign the bill that the Senate offered.  That bill still has the Keystone in it, and the Senate has gone home for the Holidays.
This is the signed and engrossed bill http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3630eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr3630eas.pdf

Of course President Obama can choose to scrap the whole thing.
We'll see what he's made of now.

I encourage my liberal friends to call and email the White House, and let the President know how they feel.

Approval of the Keystone pipeline threatens unemployment, high energy costs and everything they have worked so hard for!

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 04:28:48 PM
Of course President Obama can choose to scrap the whole thing.
We'll see what he's made of now.

I encourage my liberal friends to call and email the White House, and let the President know how they feel.

Approval of the Keystone pipeline threatens unemployment, high energy costs and everything they have worked so hard for!

So you're back to choosing words in an article and just placing them so it fits what you want to believe or what?

No chance he's going to scrap Keystone now, he just made a statement:

Obama: "I congratulate members of Congress for ending the partisan stalemate by reaching an agreement"

He's got some golfin to do!

Merry Christmas Mr. President.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 04:45:16 PM
No chance he's going to scrap Keystone now, he just made a statement:

Obama: "I congratulate members of Congress for ending the partisan stalemate by reaching an agreement"

He's got some golfin to do!

Merry Christmas Mr. President.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/politics/congress-payroll-tax-cut/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/politics/congress-payroll-tax-cut/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

QuoteWashington (CNN) -- House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday announced an agreement with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to extend the payroll tax cut for two months.

The deal amounted to a reversal of the opposition by House Republicans of the two-month extension passed by the Senate.

According to Republican and Democratic sources, previously recalcitrant House GOP leaders agreed to the short-term extension of the tax break to allow time for further negotiations.

Those terms were part of a bipartisan Senate deal that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats demanded the House accept.

The deal also includes the addition of legislative language to ease the administrative burden on small businesses implementing the plan, Boehner said in a statement.

"We will ask the House and Senate to approve this agreement by unanimous consent before Christmas," Boehner said, indicating the chambers could pass the plan without objection so that members don't have to return to Washington from their holiday recess.

The development came hours after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, called for a short-term extension to end the standoff, increasing pressure on House GOP leaders to end their resistance to such a step.

Boehner, R-Ohio, initially rejected McConnell's call, instead releasing a statement that reiterated his demand for negotiators to craft an immediate one-year tax cut extension -- something that has been considered extremely unlikely by most congressional observers.

With nine days until the payroll tax cut is set to expire, bringing a tax increase averaging $1,000 for American workers, the ongoing impasse pitting the House Republican leadership against the White House, congressional Democrats and fellow Republicans is the kind of political gamesmanship that Americans dislike about Congress, Obama said earlier Thursday.

The two-month Senate compromise was passed last Saturday by an 89-10 vote, with strong Republican support, after Senate negotiators were unable to agree on a one-year extension.

Boehner has instead demanded negotiations on a one-year extension, arguing that anything shorter would simply prolong the issue and causes uncertainty for American taxpayers and businesses.

His stance drew sharp criticism this week, including an editorial in the conservative Wall Street Journal that said House Republicans had lost the political advantage of advocating tax cuts to Obama and the Democrats.

On Thursday, McConnell's proposal and calls by other conservative Republicans for the House to accept a short-term extension showed the tide turning against Boehner and his GOP leaders.

This is indeed a great victory for the president. 

Does Obama have the ability to line item veto this kind of bill?

Quote from: Townsend on December 22, 2011, 04:51:36 PM
Does Obama have the ability to line item veto this kind of bill?

No he does not.  He can send it back to the Senate at this point, or sign it.

At least they won't have to fly Bo back and forth any more for photo ops.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 04:51:16 PM
This is indeed a great victory for the president. 

No kidding...

QuoteThey accuse House Republicans of creating the very instability they have railed against, and of needlessly creating yet another congressional crisis at the end of a year filled with Capitol Hill showdowns.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, strongly criticized the House GOP's stance on CNN's "American Morning" Thursday.

"The Republicans are losing this fight. We need to get back on track," McCain said. "A thousand dollars a year is a big amount of money to most Americans, and I think it's very important. ... I worry about the fact that we are continuing to increase the debt and the deficit, but now it's become very symbolic, and I think it has to be done."

The Wall Street Journal editorial blasted Boehner and his House GOP colleagues, arguing that they had "achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter."

"At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly," the paper's editorial writers said.

A Senate GOP leadership aide told CNN Wednesday that House Republicans had "painted themselves into a corner."

"This is a lose-lose situation for us. (House Republicans) let the Democrats get the messaging advantage and, more specifically, we've turned one of our key issues on its head," the aide said. "The Republicans look like they are the ones blocking tax relief."

"When you are arguing process, you are losing, by definition," the aide added. "We are arguing process while they've got politics on their side."

Despite mounting pressure on House Republicans to give in and pass the $33 billion Senate bill, a well-placed House GOP source indicated Wednesday that his side would not consider an end-game to the standoff until next week, just days before the December 31 deadline.

Numerous Senate Republicans have indicated they feel politically undercut by their House colleagues after agreeing to the two-month compromise negotiated by McConnell and Reid.

The House GOP caucus, however, revolted against that blueprint, calling it an inadequate patchwork plan. On Tuesday, the House voted 229-193 on a virtual party-line basis to express its disagreement with the Senate bill and call for the creation of a House-Senate conference committee to resolve the matter -- something previously ruled out by Reid.

The House also approved a separate resolution supporting a year-long extension of both the payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits, along with a new, two-year doc fix.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the Senate has adjourned for the year. Most House members also left Washington after Tuesday's vote.

A number of Republicans have said the party should have declared victory after winning an agreement by Obama -- as part of the payroll tax cut package -- to make a decision within the next 60 days on whether to proceed with the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Republicans and some Democratic union leaders say the controversial pipeline will create thousands of new jobs; critics question its environmental impact.

A failure to act could have major political fallout. Numerous observers believe Obama is preparing to parrot Harry Truman's 1948 campaign next year by running against an unpopular, dysfunctional Congress controlled partly by the GOP.

CNN's Ted Barrett, Dana Bash, Kate Bolduan, Lisa Desjardins, Matt Hoye, Xuan Thai, Brianna Keilar and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

   

Quote from: Gaspar on December 22, 2011, 04:53:47 PM
No he does not.  He can send it back to the Senate at this point, or sign it.

Why not?

Per CNN on the 17th:

QuoteThe $33 billion deal, should it pass the House, also avoids cutting federal funds to physicians who accept Medicare and speeds up a decision over a pipeline, giving the White House 60 days to make a call on the controversial Keystone XL project.

So it means that the white house only has to consider the pipeline.  It's not in the bill.

Quote from: Hoss on December 22, 2011, 04:46:16 PM

Watch this putt

The aftermath:

At least he didn't flog the bishop.

And the short bus candidate has spoken...

Quote(CNN) - Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann said Thursday a plan to extend the payroll tax cut by only two months was a "temporary gimmick" that would do nothing to boost job creation.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/22/bachmann-calls-short-term-payroll-tax-extension-a-gimmick/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/22/bachmann-calls-short-term-payroll-tax-extension-a-gimmick/)

She's not far off.  It's a vote buy on our backs, nothing more, nothing less.  When the media corps starts trotting out people explaining how that extra $40 means they can buy three days of heating oil, you know it's about the votes.

The Media is calling the Weeper of the House "CAVEMAN" now.....oh, the irony.

The White House must make a decision based on EPA recommendations. The EPA already published their report, approving the construction. He has no wiggle room.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 22, 2011, 05:33:16 PM
She's not far off.  It's a vote buy on our backs, nothing more, nothing less.  When the media corps starts trotting out people explaining how that extra $40 means they can buy three days of heating oil, you know it's about the votes.

Oh I don't disagree that it's done to save their asses.  I'm just taking the opportunity to call her a short-bus.

Quote from: Gaspar on December 23, 2011, 05:48:40 AM
The White House must make a decision based on EPA recommendations. The EPA already published their report, approving the construction. He has no wiggle room.

Can you cite this?

Diane Rehm just announced it passed the house.  On it's way to the whitehouse.

Some of the Republican reps tweeted last night they'd head back to DC to object since it takes a unanimous vote.  Boener's office said "today we've seen the difference between actual courage and twitter courage."

The hand just said "slap".

Quote from: Townsend on December 23, 2011, 08:53:19 AM
Can you cite this?

Not the EPA, the State Department Report. . .and anywhoo. . . The president just signed it into law.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-approves-keystone-pipeline-agreement-payroll-tax-holiday-194400363.html

Quote from: Gaspar on December 23, 2011, 09:25:40 AM
Not the EPA, the State Department Report. . .and anywhoo. . . The president just signed it into law.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-approves-keystone-pipeline-agreement-payroll-tax-holiday-194400363.html

That link is from Monday.

You sure it's gotten to Obama's desk?

Quote from: Townsend on December 23, 2011, 09:34:35 AM
That link is from Monday.

You sure it's gotten to Obama's desk?

Don't worry.  Psychic reporter.  ;)

Anyone want to bet on this horse?

Quote from: Gaspar on December 23, 2011, 09:56:54 AM
Don't worry.  Psychic reporter.  ;)

You realize someone saying

Quotechoosing to appease the no-growth environmental wackos

means they're not a reporter right?

Looks like "gimmick" is the new buzz word for not raising taxes across the board.