Cheap Oil Is An Economic Time Bomb For America!

[Roadrunner]

Really not a lot we can do to control the price...

We produce 4 million more barrels of oil a day in this country than we did a decade ago.

That's ultimately why they price collapsed.

Prices rise.

The oil ain't going anywhere.

Always been like this.

 

[Care4all]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

Duh! It's like talking to a wall.

I'm a Taurus, and bull headed!

 

[Care4all]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

If you dare....lot's more to read at the LINK: Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

Analysis
Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama’s spending amounts to an “inferno.” But who is really responsible for the huge jump that took place in fiscal 2009?Here are some undisputed facts:

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
• Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
  
• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

How Much Did Obama Add?

But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.

It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

Ordinarily, an incoming president has little or no influence over spending that was approved under his predecessor. So in normal circumstances, all spending for fiscal year 2009 would have been rightly tied to Bush, and fiscal 2010 would be the first year for which Obama would have prepared a budget and signed the major spending bills. And for the most part, big spending programs that require no yearly appropriations, including Social Security and Medicare, did indeed continue to operate during fiscal 2009 under the policies in effect under Bush.

But in Obama’s case, he quickly pushed through Congress and signed a large economic stimulus measure containing a combination of tax cuts and new spending in fiscal 2009. And while Bush had signed full-year appropriations for the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and veterans programs, he had left the remainder of government agencies that need annual appropriations funded only through March 2009.

Here’s how we arrived at our $203 billion total: We combed through all the appropriations bills signed by Obama for 2009, plus other legislation that CBO said also resulted in increased spending. We also examined the budget effects of Obama’s decision to bail out General Motors and Chrysler using funds previously appropriated under TARP. And here’s what we found:

• $2 billion for children’s health insurance. On Feb. 4, Obama signed a bill expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program, covering millions of additional children (a Democratic bill Bush had vetoed in the previous Congress). “CBO estimates that the act will increase mandatory outlays by $2 billion in 2009,” CBO later stated (page 5).
• $114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).
• $32 billion of the “omnibus” spending bill Obama signed on March 11, 2009, to keep the agencies that Bush had not fully funded running through the remainder of the fiscal year. The $410 billion measure included $32 billion more than had been spent the previous year, according to a floor statement by Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top-ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. (See page H2790 in the Congressional Record.) “An 8 percent—or a $32 billion—increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable,” he declared.
  A case can be made that Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for the entire $32 billion increase. The $410 billion was only $20 billion more than Bush had requested, according to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the appropriations chairman. (See page H2800.) And CBO later figured the increase amounted to only $9 billion over what it was projecting on the assumption that the levels Bush approved for the first part of the year would be extended for the entire year (page 5).
  But it was Obama who signed the bill, so we assign responsibility for the full annual increase to him, not Bush.
• $2 billion for deposit insurance. The “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act” that Obama signed May 20 had among its many provisions some changes to the federal program that insures bank deposits. CBO later estimated that would increase fiscal 2009 outlays by $2 billion (page 54).
• $31 billion in “supplemental” spending for the military and other purposes. Obama pushed for and signed on June 24 another spending measure. The press dubbed it a “war funding” bill, but it actually contained $26 billion for non-defense measures (including funding for flu vaccine against the H1N1 virus, and for the International Monetary Fund) in addition to $80 billion for the military.
  Only a portion of the total $106 billion it authorized would actually be spent during the remaining three months of fiscal 2009, however. Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, stated on June 18: “The conference report includes $105.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2009, which will result in outlays in 2009 of $30.5 billion.” (See page S6776.)
  Here again, a case can be made that Obama isn’t responsible for the entire $31 billion. Economist Mitchell argues that $25 billion in military spending should be assigned to Bush, because “Bush surely would have asked for at least that much extra spending.” But he didn’t. So rather than speculate, we’ll assign it all to Obama, who asked for it.
• $2 billion in additional “Cash for Clunkers” funding. Obama signed this measure Aug. 7, providing “emergency supplemental” funding for a stimulus program that offered $3,500 to $4,500 to car owners who traded in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy. Nearly all was spent in fiscal 2009. (See page 959.)
• $20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts. At one point the government had paid out nearly $80 billion to support the automakers. But some of this was Bush’s doing, and much has been repaid and will be in the future.
  Here’s how we arrived at our $20 billion figure for Obama:
  By the time Obama took office, Bush already had loaned nearly $21 billion to the two automakers from funds appropriated originally for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and had committed the government to lend $4 billion more. But Bush left decisions on further aid to Obama, who poured in additional billions.
  By the end of the fiscal year, the Treasury had made approximately $76 billion in loans and equity investments to GM, Chrysler and their respective financing entities (some had already been repaid). But for budget accounting purposes, not all of this was counted as federal spending under the TARP law. That’s because the government stood to receive loan repayments with interest, and held nearly 61 percent of the stock of the reorganized General Motors. What was counted as spending was — in rough terms — the difference between the estimated future value of those assets to taxpayers and their initial cost.
  Treasury put the net cost of the GM and Chrysler support during fiscal 2009 at $45 billion (see page 110, the “Total subsidy cost” line under the heading “AIFP,” for Automotive Industry Financing Program). That’s the amount officially booked as a federal outlay for fiscal 2009.
  We assume — we think reasonably — that the $25 billion committed under Bush would have been lost had Obama done nothing. So we subtract the full amount of Bush’s commitment from the net total of $45 billion that Treasury initially estimated for fiscal 2009.
  For the record, the ultimate total cost of the auto bailout is now estimated to be lower than initially expected. It is put at $21 billion by the Treasury Department (see page 5) and and only $19 billion by CBO (see Table 3). But those lowered estimates don’t affect what was booked as spending in fiscal 2009.

Other big domestic programs that don’t require yearly appropriations, including Social Security and Medicare, continued to operate as they had under Bush. One big fiscal 2009 spending increase resulted from an unusually large 5.8 percent cost of living increase that took effect just before Obama took office. That was an anomaly, as we explained in “Social Security COLA,” posted Sept. 23, 2009, and there would be no COLA at all for the next two years. The same 5.8 percent COLA also was given in 2009 to millions of federal retirees, military retirees and disabled veterans and their survivors.

So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

If you dare....lot's more to read at the LINK: Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

Still waiting for an answer:
Let me ask you this - and please do try to be honest in your response....
Both Dem-controlled houses houses of Congress wrote and passed the FY2009 Budget.
BHO signed the FY2009 budget.
How much blame do you assign The Dem-controlled Congress and BHO for the FY2009 deficit?

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

Duh! It's like talking to a wall.

I'm a Taurus, and bull headed!

You're full of bull and pig headed.

 

[Political Junky]

My God, the right bitches when the prices go up, now they're bitching because it's low.

 

[HenryBHough]

Nay, not complaining about prices being low.

Cautioning, however, that once America's exploration is shut down The Saudis will jack the prices back up and there'll be no alternative to paying those prices until American petroleum exploration/development can begin anew. IF The EPA would ever allow that.

Enjoy it while it lasts. I give it 2 years, 3 max.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And before October 1, 2008 President Bush submitted a budget proposal that the Democrat controlled Congress failed to pass. We ended FY 2008 with no new budget in place. A compromise was reached with the democrat House and Senate and a continuing resolution was passed in order to fund government for 6 months. The resolution was hammered by Democrats who wanted even more money to give away to their most dependable voters. a compromise was reached. Bush signed it in order to avoid a government shut down.
Enter obama who added over 1.3 trillion in spending to the original Bush budget and passed it easily in a Congress with a huge majority of Democrats.

Your premise that the CR or the 2009 budget deficits were Bush's fault is complete and utter bullshit. As the rest of your cut and paste is based on your bullshit premise, I deleted it as meaningless.

Your argument is in shambles. admit it![/QUOTE]

 

[Flopper]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

Yes, good for American today, but not necessary good for America or the world in the future. So let's enjoy what we have today and let our despondence's worry about the world we leave them.

Since lower oil pricing at any time is good for America and most of the world, you must be making the environmental argument which has some validity but not when contrasted to the economic and political benefits we are reaping today. The environmental impact is not significantly greater at $40/bbl than it is at $100/bbl but the economic benefit for America and most of the world is humongous.
I am curious about your use of the word "despondence's."
Who or what are they? Did you mean descendants?

Yes, I meant descendants. I believe a rate of $40/bbl compared to $100/bbl would result in a big decrease in the use alternative fuel sources.. Also, if the 40% decrease in gas prices sticks, it will surely encourage more consumption and less interest in conservation and thus an even faster growth rate of emissions.

So yes, I think low oil prices will be good for the economy, but bad for future generations that will have to deal with the results of a faster growth rate of air pollution and CO2 emissions.

 

[Ernie S.]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

Yes, good for American today, but not necessary good for America or the world in the future. So let's enjoy what we have today and let our despondence's worry about the world we leave them.

Since lower oil pricing at any time is good for America and most of the world, you must be making the environmental argument which has some validity but not when contrasted to the economic and political benefits we are reaping today. The environmental impact is not significantly greater at $40/bbl than it is at $100/bbl but the economic benefit for America and most of the world is humongous.
I am curious about your use of the word "despondence's."
Who or what are they? Did you mean descendants?

Yes, I meant descendants. I believe a rate of $40/bbl compared to $100/bbl would result in a big decrease in the use alternative fuel sources.. Also, if the 40% decrease in gas prices sticks, it will surely encourage more consumption and less interest in conservation and thus an even faster growth rate of emissions.

So yes, I think low oil prices will be good for the economy, but bad for future generations that will have to deal with the results of a faster growth rate of air pollution and CO2 emissions.

Tell you what! I'll buy 10,000 gallons of gasoline and park 3 tank trucks in your front yard. You and your friends can do your part for global warming and pay me 10 bucks a gallon.

 

[Care4all]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And before October 1, 2008 President Bush submitted a budget proposal that the Democrat controlled Congress failed to pass. We ended FY 2008 with no new budget in place. A compromise was reached with the democrat House and Senate and a continuing resolution was passed in order to fund government for 6 months. The resolution was hammered by Democrats who wanted even more money to give away to their most dependable voters. a compromise was reached. Bush signed it in order to avoid a government shut down.
Enter obama who added over 1.3 trillion in spending to the original Bush budget and passed it easily in a Congress with a huge majority of Democrats.

Your premise that the CR or the 2009 budget deficits were Bush's fault is complete and utter bullshit. As the rest of your cut and paste is based on your bullshit premise, I deleted it as meaningless.

Your argument is in shambles. admit it!

[/QUOTE]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

If you dare....lot's more to read at the LINK: Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

Still waiting for an answer:
Let me ask you this - and please do try to be honest in your response....
Both Dem-controlled houses houses of Congress wrote and passed the FY2009 Budget.
BHO signed the FY2009 budget.
How much blame do you assign The Dem-controlled Congress and BHO for the FY2009 deficit?

6 months of 2009 fiscal year HAD PASSED ALREADY BEFORE O bama signed the budget bill in March.... PLUS president Bush ALREADY signed a fiscal 2009 appropriations bill that FUNDED FOR THE FULL FISCAL 2009, the Pentegon/military, homeland security and veterans affairs.... I REPEAT, these were funded for the FULL Fiscal 2009 Year

And in addition to this, Bush also signed a 700 BILLION DOLLAR BAIL OUT for fiscal 2009, AND he also signed a 5.8% cost of living increase for all Social Security recipients for fy2009.....

AND with the EXCEPTION OF THE $140 BILLION TO $200 BILLION that Obama injected in to the FY year budget, ALL OTHER SPENDING was already in motion BEFORE Obama took office....

so my answer and any person with any kind of mathematical and logistical wits to them, will tell you that up to $200 billion of fiscal year 2009 can be attributed to something Obama actually did....

otherwise the FY2009 belongs to president Bush... and that's a FACT.

 

[Ernie S.]

I should have listened when they told me to never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Care4all

 

[Flopper]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

Yes, good for American today, but not necessary good for America or the world in the future. So let's enjoy what we have today and let our despondence's worry about the world we leave them.

Since lower oil pricing at any time is good for America and most of the world, you must be making the environmental argument which has some validity but not when contrasted to the economic and political benefits we are reaping today. The environmental impact is not significantly greater at $40/bbl than it is at $100/bbl but the economic benefit for America and most of the world is humongous.
I am curious about your use of the word "despondence's."
Who or what are they? Did you mean descendants?

Yes, I meant descendants. I believe a rate of $40/bbl compared to $100/bbl would result in a big decrease in the use alternative fuel sources.. Also, if the 40% decrease in gas prices sticks, it will surely encourage more consumption and less interest in conservation and thus an even faster growth rate of emissions.

So yes, I think low oil prices will be good for the economy, but bad for future generations that will have to deal with the results of a faster growth rate of air pollution and CO2 emissions.

Tell you what! I'll buy 10,000 gallons of gasoline and park 3 tank trucks in your front yard. You and your friends can do your part for global warming and pay me 10 bucks a gallon.

I'm not about to go out of my way "to do my part to stop global warming" because I seriously doubt it can be stopped at least not in this century. To actually stop global warming, assuming it can be stopped by reduction of CO2 levels, would require unparalleled cooperation throughout the world, a long term commitment, and more more money than God. So keep your 10,000 gallons of gas and I'll buy mine at the pump for $2.20 a gallon.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not about to go out of my way "to do my part to stop global warming" because I seriously doubt it can be stopped at least not in this century. To actually stop global warming, assuming it can be stopped by reduction of CO2 levels...

Does that mean you also are not convinced that CO2 is the driving factor some claim in "global warming?"

 

[Ernie S.]

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

Yes, good for American today, but not necessary good for America or the world in the future. So let's enjoy what we have today and let our despondence's worry about the world we leave them.

Since lower oil pricing at any time is good for America and most of the world, you must be making the environmental argument which has some validity but not when contrasted to the economic and political benefits we are reaping today. The environmental impact is not significantly greater at $40/bbl than it is at $100/bbl but the economic benefit for America and most of the world is humongous.
I am curious about your use of the word "despondence's."
Who or what are they? Did you mean descendants?

Yes, I meant descendants. I believe a rate of $40/bbl compared to $100/bbl would result in a big decrease in the use alternative fuel sources.. Also, if the 40% decrease in gas prices sticks, it will surely encourage more consumption and less interest in conservation and thus an even faster growth rate of emissions.

So yes, I think low oil prices will be good for the economy, but bad for future generations that will have to deal with the results of a faster growth rate of air pollution and CO2 emissions.

Tell you what! I'll buy 10,000 gallons of gasoline and park 3 tank trucks in your front yard. You and your friends can do your part for global warming and pay me 10 bucks a gallon.

I'm not about to go out of my way "to do my part to stop global warming" because I seriously doubt it can be stopped at least not in this century. To actually stop global warming, assuming it can be stopped by reduction of CO2 levels, would require unparalleled cooperation throughout the world, a long term commitment, and more more money than God. So keep your 10,000 gallons of gas and I'll buy mine at the pump for $2.20 a gallon.

A buck 88 here today. Is your state raping you?

 

[longknife]

A buck 88 here today. Is your state raping you?

Transportation costs - how far you are from the refineries.

Also state and local taxes

 

[Flopper]

I'm not about to go out of my way "to do my part to stop global warming" because I seriously doubt it can be stopped at least not in this century. To actually stop global warming, assuming it can be stopped by reduction of CO2 levels...

Does that mean you also are not convinced that CO2 is the driving factor some claim in "global warming?"

Yes, I believe CO2 is a primary factor in global warming. I just don't believe much can be done about it today. Most of the world, particular the countries most responsible for the problem are not about to make the type of changes that would be necessarily. If I'm alive to see cheap power generation through fusion or another fuel source, then I'll show more interest. Till then, I'll keep my Explorer because it's good in the snow and off road and our Prius because my wife loves it for town driving..