Obamanomics

[Care4all]

Toro is stuck on stupid and Keystone is dead regardless..

the oil would be exported, Saudi and Shell refine the majority of it, everyone but the US makes a ton of $$$ ..

the end

we, USA citizens, MAKE MORE MONEY if Keystone xl is NOT built.

Right now, our refineries in the midwest are being used to refine these tar sands, and the USA is also the CUSTOMER buying their refined products, gasoline!

This has kept gasoline prices in these midwest regions, relatively low compared to the rest of the nation....

Is that why Chicago has the highest gas prices in the country? LOL!

refinery maintenance with shut downs is what has temporarily raised prices...

and please stop with your 'one liners'....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obamanomics? Sure. My guy has 68 consecutive months of private sector job growth and has America selling more oil than it actually buys from abroad now for the first time in ages. What does your guy have?


upload a gif

and has America selling more oil than it actually buys from abroad now for the first time in ages

Holy bad math, Batman!

 

[Care4all]

keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.

keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.

Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?

i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!

Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.

for them to refine it,

So Americanrefineries with American workers would benefit.
The products would be available for use in the US.
The workers wages and the corporate profits would be taxed by the US government.
Corporate dividends would also be paid to US investors who would be taxed on them.
As long as we ignore all these benefits, you're right.
No use/benefit for the US in the pipeline.

Wow, I knew liberals were bad at economics, but I didn't realize you had absolutely no clue.

ok, i did a little googling for you.....

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Duties? Where do duties or the lack of them impact any of my points? Or help any of yours?
If the FTZ allows them to export refined products without paying a duty on the imported oil, so what?
You still have US jobs and profits and another secure source of oil not dependent on 7th century savages.
And if this reduces our imports of dirty crude from Venezuela, that's another bonus.

there is nothing more dirty than tar sands oil Todd!

time for you to stop INTENTIONALLY being stuck on stupid and read up....

The TransCanada tar sands oil through keystone xl to get to the Gulf refinerires is for EXPORT and NOT for U.S. consumption, and nothing you say will change that....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

well, i'm pretty sure we're not thnking of the pipeline as OUR infrastructure.

our infrastructure is bridges, roads, trains, etc., all of which are in dire need of repair.

Pipelines are infrastructure.

In the United States.

They are also access to oil that otherwise goes other places. If the sour crudes that refineries tooled up for could get there at a discount, our energy situation would improve which always helps the economy. Infrastructure is supporting structure. It allows other things to happen.

Or is it that people on the far left believe that spending 10 years to construct a bridge (and employ people that long) is a good thing ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No roads, no bridges, NO JOBS FOR ANYONE in the future.

No expanded Electric grid, no electricity for businesses or jobs of the future.

No expanded and fixed up schools, no educated work force, for jobs in the future.

I'm beginning to think Toro is here as a secret weapon from Canada to turn us into a third world country.

Yeah, more jobs and more secure, cheaper oil.
Just like Cuba. Moron.

NONE, zip, zero oil from Canada's keystone xl was to be for USA use....

do you understand that?

NONE.

zero oil from Canada's keystone xl was to be for USA use....

A pipeline built to ship oil from Canada to US refineries isn't for the USA to use?
That's funny.

yes Todd, it is NOT for USA use, but to expand transcanada's ability to transport their refined tar sands oil, overseas via oil tankers.

HOW can you not know this?

to expand transcanada's ability to transport their refined tar sands oil

TransCanada is a pipeline company. They don't own the oil.
They don't own the refinery, they don't own the refined product.
Do you have a valid point anywhere?

If your claim is that US refineries don't provide jobs to Americans, pay taxes on refinery profits, pay dividends, also taxed, to investors and then, reduce the US trade deficit by selling refined products here as well as abroad, well, I already knew you were an ignorant liberal, but then I repeat myself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toro is stuck on stupid and Keystone is dead regardless..

the oil would be exported, Saudi and Shell refine the majority of it, everyone but the US makes a ton of $$$ ..

the end

we, USA citizens, MAKE MORE MONEY if Keystone xl is NOT built.

Right now, our refineries in the midwest are being used to refine these tar sands, and the USA is also the CUSTOMER buying their refined products, gasoline!

This has kept gasoline prices in these midwest regions, relatively low compared to the rest of the nation....

Is that why Chicago has the highest gas prices in the country? LOL!

refinery maintenance with shut downs is what has temporarily raised prices...

and please stop with your 'one liners'....

Chicago gas prices are not temporarily highest in the country, they are usually among the highest in the country.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.

Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?

i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!

Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.

for them to refine it,

So Americanrefineries with American workers would benefit.
The products would be available for use in the US.
The workers wages and the corporate profits would be taxed by the US government.
Corporate dividends would also be paid to US investors who would be taxed on them.
As long as we ignore all these benefits, you're right.
No use/benefit for the US in the pipeline.

Wow, I knew liberals were bad at economics, but I didn't realize you had absolutely no clue.

ok, i did a little googling for you.....

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Duties? Where do duties or the lack of them impact any of my points? Or help any of yours?
If the FTZ allows them to export refined products without paying a duty on the imported oil, so what?
You still have US jobs and profits and another secure source of oil not dependent on 7th century savages.
And if this reduces our imports of dirty crude from Venezuela, that's another bonus.

there is nothing more dirty than tar sands oil Todd!

time for you to stop INTENTIONALLY being stuck on stupid and read up....

The TransCanada tar sands oil through keystone xl to get to the Gulf refinerires is for EXPORT and NOT for U.S. consumption, and nothing you say will change that....

Pure garbage. I work in refining and you can bet that when those crudes become economic we'll be running them.

Many refineries are set up to process them and getting them at a discount is what they want.

Valero is a different case. They are a pipeline company first.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Truly, I'm stunned.

I wonder how many Obama supporters will not get it?

Weak.

Keystone is a single infrastructure project that won't lead to many jobs being created. So, what he said makes perfect sense.

Weak try, bro.

The State Department said that 42,000 jobs would have been created.

The State Department report does puts the total number of jobs at 42,100 -- but the definition of a job in this sense is a position filled for one year. This total reflects both jobs created directly as a result of construction and manufacturing for the pipeline -- about 3,900 annual positions over two years -- as well as spin-off jobs supported by construction workers who purchase materials for the project or spend their wages in the economy. Much of the construction work would come in four- or or eight-month stretches​

3 key Keystone XL questions answered

Pipeline require maintenance. Lots of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.

Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?

i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!

Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.

for them to refine it,

So Americanrefineries with American workers would benefit.
The products would be available for use in the US.
The workers wages and the corporate profits would be taxed by the US government.
Corporate dividends would also be paid to US investors who would be taxed on them.
As long as we ignore all these benefits, you're right.
No use/benefit for the US in the pipeline.

Wow, I knew liberals were bad at economics, but I didn't realize you had absolutely no clue.

ok, i did a little googling for you.....

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Duties? Where do duties or the lack of them impact any of my points? Or help any of yours?
If the FTZ allows them to export refined products without paying a duty on the imported oil, so what?
You still have US jobs and profits and another secure source of oil not dependent on 7th century savages.
And if this reduces our imports of dirty crude from Venezuela, that's another bonus.

there is nothing more dirty than tar sands oil Todd!

time for you to stop INTENTIONALLY being stuck on stupid and read up....

The TransCanada tar sands oil through keystone xl to get to the Gulf refinerires is for EXPORT and NOT for U.S. consumption, and nothing you say will change that....

there is nothing more dirty than tar sands oil Todd

So what? Only an idiot like Obama, and apparently you, thinks that stopping the pipeline stops either the extraction of the dirty oil or the transport of the dirty oil to the US.

 

[American_Jihad]

Obamanomics in Catastrophic Action

How Obama's new mortgage program is steering America toward another housing-market collapse.

January 22, 2016
John Perazzo

Remember a few years ago, when the American housing market collapsed as a direct result of government policies that—in the name of racial justice—pressured banks to approve mortgage loans for massive numbers of underqualified nonwhite applicants? Remember how that collapse set in motion the financial crisis that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama repeatedly called “the worst economy since the Great Depression”? And remember how Obama—who had long been a leading proponent of precisely the policies that had triggered the crisis—cast himself as the savior who was going to restore fiscal sanity and untangle the whole big mess?

Well, now Savior Obama and his White House are excitedly introducing Americans to their latest brainchild, the “HomeReady” mortgage program—offered through Fannie Mae and designed to help borrowers in “low-income” and “high-minority” census tracts. “For the first time,” boasts Fannie Mae, “income from a non-borrower household member [e.g., a roommate or family member] can be considered to determine an applicable debt-to-income ratio for the loan.” And if those combined incomes aren't enough to qualify an applicant for a mortgage loan, HomeReady comes with additional built-in “flexibilities” like “allowing income from non-occupant borrowers, such as parents.” In other words, just keep rounding up everyone you know, until you can scrape together a 3% down payment and show a combined income that's high enough to qualify for an individual loan. This makes the slipshod lending standards that caused the crisis of 2008 look exacting by comparison.

What about minority applicants with bad credit? No problem there, either! As Investor's Business Daily notes, “You can qualify with a FICO credit score as low as 620, which is subprime.” In fact, even the term “subprime loan”—meaning a loan that has a high interest rate and less favorable terms in order to compensate the lender for the high credit risk incurred—has received a thorough makeover from Obama & Company. From now on, such transactions are going to be called “alternative loans.” See? No more “subprime” crises—ever again! Ain't it grand?

The government policies that led to the housing market collapse of 2008 initially emerged in the mid-1970s, when Democrats in Congress began a campaign to help low-income minorities become homeowners. This led to the passage, in 1977, of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a mandate for banks to make special efforts to seek out and lend to borrowers of meager means. Founded on the premise that government intervention is necessary to counteract the fundamentally racist and inequitable nature of American society and the free market, the CRA was eventually transformed from an outreach effort into a strict quota system by the Clinton administration. Under the new arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low-income minorities, it ran the risk of getting a low CRA rating from the FDIC. This, in turn, could derail the bank's efforts to expand, relocate, merge, etc. From a practical standpoint, then, banks had no recourse but to drastically lower their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell explains, this led to “skyrocketing rates of mortgage delinquencies and defaults,” and the rest is history.

The CRA was by no means the only mechanism designed by government to impose race-based lending quotas on financial institutions. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) instituted rules encouraging lenders to dramatically hike their loan-approval rates for minority applicants and began bringing legal actions against mortgage bankers who failed to do so, regardless of the reason. Moreover, HUD pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a steeply rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers. Many of these were subprime mortgages.

Additional pressure was applied by community organizations like ACORN, which routinely and frivolously accused banks of engaging in racially discriminatory lending practices that violated the mandates of the CRA. These groups often sued banks to prevent them from expanding or merging as they wished. Barack Obama, ACORN's committed ally, was strongly in favor of this practice. In a 1994 class-action lawsuit against Citibank, Obama represented ACORN in demanding more favorable terms for subprime homebuyer mortgages. After four years of being dragged through the mud, a beleaguered Citibank—anxious to put an end to the incessant smears (charging racism) that Obama and his fellow litigators were hurling in its direction (to say nothing of its mounting legal bills)—agreed to settle the case.

...

Obamanomics in Catastrophic Action

 

[auditor0007]

The Keystone presser

"The Keystone pipeline isn't good for the economy. It won't create many jobs."

Immediately followed by

"What would create jobs is an infrastructure program."

Wow.



Outstanding.

Infrastructure for big oil isn't quite the same as infrastructure for the direct use of and by Americans. I get your point, but you obviously are missing the real point.

 

[auditor0007]

Obamanomics in Catastrophic Action

How Obama's new mortgage program is steering America toward another housing-market collapse.

January 22, 2016
John Perazzo

Remember a few years ago, when the American housing market collapsed as a direct result of government policies that—in the name of racial justice—pressured banks to approve mortgage loans for massive numbers of underqualified nonwhite applicants? Remember how that collapse set in motion the financial crisis that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama repeatedly called “the worst economy since the Great Depression”? And remember how Obama—who had long been a leading proponent of precisely the policies that had triggered the crisis—cast himself as the savior who was going to restore fiscal sanity and untangle the whole big mess?

Well, now Savior Obama and his White House are excitedly introducing Americans to their latest brainchild, the “HomeReady” mortgage program—offered through Fannie Mae and designed to help borrowers in “low-income” and “high-minority” census tracts. “For the first time,” boasts Fannie Mae, “income from a non-borrower household member [e.g., a roommate or family member] can be considered to determine an applicable debt-to-income ratio for the loan.” And if those combined incomes aren't enough to qualify an applicant for a mortgage loan, HomeReady comes with additional built-in “flexibilities” like “allowing income from non-occupant borrowers, such as parents.” In other words, just keep rounding up everyone you know, until you can scrape together a 3% down payment and show a combined income that's high enough to qualify for an individual loan. This makes the slipshod lending standards that caused the crisis of 2008 look exacting by comparison.

What about minority applicants with bad credit? No problem there, either! As Investor's Business Daily notes, “You can qualify with a FICO credit score as low as 620, which is subprime.” In fact, even the term “subprime loan”—meaning a loan that has a high interest rate and less favorable terms in order to compensate the lender for the high credit risk incurred—has received a thorough makeover from Obama & Company. From now on, such transactions are going to be called “alternative loans.” See? No more “subprime” crises—ever again! Ain't it grand?

The government policies that led to the housing market collapse of 2008 initially emerged in the mid-1970s, when Democrats in Congress began a campaign to help low-income minorities become homeowners. This led to the passage, in 1977, of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a mandate for banks to make special efforts to seek out and lend to borrowers of meager means. Founded on the premise that government intervention is necessary to counteract the fundamentally racist and inequitable nature of American society and the free market, the CRA was eventually transformed from an outreach effort into a strict quota system by the Clinton administration. Under the new arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low-income minorities, it ran the risk of getting a low CRA rating from the FDIC. This, in turn, could derail the bank's efforts to expand, relocate, merge, etc. From a practical standpoint, then, banks had no recourse but to drastically lower their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell explains, this led to “skyrocketing rates of mortgage delinquencies and defaults,” and the rest is history.

The CRA was by no means the only mechanism designed by government to impose race-based lending quotas on financial institutions. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) instituted rules encouraging lenders to dramatically hike their loan-approval rates for minority applicants and began bringing legal actions against mortgage bankers who failed to do so, regardless of the reason. Moreover, HUD pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a steeply rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers. Many of these were subprime mortgages.

Additional pressure was applied by community organizations like ACORN, which routinely and frivolously accused banks of engaging in racially discriminatory lending practices that violated the mandates of the CRA. These groups often sued banks to prevent them from expanding or merging as they wished. Barack Obama, ACORN's committed ally, was strongly in favor of this practice. In a 1994 class-action lawsuit against Citibank, Obama represented ACORN in demanding more favorable terms for subprime homebuyer mortgages. After four years of being dragged through the mud, a beleaguered Citibank—anxious to put an end to the incessant smears (charging racism) that Obama and his fellow litigators were hurling in its direction (to say nothing of its mounting legal bills)—agreed to settle the case.

...

Obamanomics in Catastrophic Action

You, like so many others, do not really understand how the housing bubble began or it's causes. The bubble began when speculators who were flipping houses all of a sudden found out there was nobody out there to buy those houses except other investors. The fact is that in many states, over half the houses sold the two years before the bust were sold to people who already owned at least one home. As for those low income nonwhites you are talking about, many of them did lose their homes, but it wasn't because they couldn't afford them a the time they purchased them. Those people lost their jobs when the market crashed and everything went down the shitter. Once they lost their jobs, then they could no longer make their payments. They were not the ones who caused the bust. They were actually the victims of the bust.