Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

[grunt11b]

One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.


Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Bullshit article from Fox Noise, goes in the manure pile.

Well let's see...

The economy was in the dumper when Reagan was elected, the masses were depressed and gripped by the idea that Ameican ascendancy was ended and that the American dream was past.

That was after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.

We will soon have had 4 years of Barrack Obama.

The masses are adopting the same mind set as was held under the shroud of the Carter policies.

If the next President takes office and initiates a period of 80 months of 80 months of expansion and the economy begins to grow at the rate of 8% and we attain full employment again, that would be nice.

If the current President knows how to ignite the growth in the economy and is not doing so, that would be almost treasonous. If he has no clue, which is my belief, that is not criminal, just too bad. Too bad for him, but moreso for us. I guess we'll know more about this after his big, belated, speech.

The country divides into two groups: Those who remember how the Carter years felt and those who are finding out.

All you need to know when it comes to what obama is doing is this right here.
Cloward

 

[grunt11b]

Well I don't know that Obama did anything to make things better, but I do know that GW and the ole GS Treasury Secretary left one 'hell of a mess'!

So instead of trying to fix said mess Obama doubled down on it, and you guys give him a free pass on it while blaming it all on Bush? Does that make any damn sense at all?

If you think the economy is worse today than it was when Obama took office by any metric, you are just stuck on stupid my friend.

The entire globe was in fucking free-fall. Gripe all you want about how sluggish the recovery is and how you believe a different approach would have worked faster or better... But it's worse? There is just no basis in fact for that angle. This wasn't the little pissant 2000 recession. The walls were coming down fast. What we're looking at today is rock solid by comparison.

There's a recovery? When did this happen?

 

[grunt11b]

The Reagan years achieved their 'growth' through cheap energy and a consumer credit bubble...

Clinton years - Stock bubble...

Bush years - Housing bubble...

Unfortunately, with cheap energy gone (probably for good), the only way to see comparable growth is the find the next bubble, and there's some intellectual disagreement about whether inflating it would be the right thing to do, even if we could locate and guide the inflation of said bubble.

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

You're right, it will never be as cheap as it ONCE was, but would be a hell off alot cheaper then it is now if the politicians in charge would allow us to drill for it.
Also, until this new cheaper energy is ready to go we are stuck with Oil, so why not make it cheaper now by not importing it and drilling our own until that day comes? Makes too much sense for someone as smart as you right? Do you enjoy paying $4 at the pump right now? Or would you rather be paying $1 at the pump for a gallon of gas?
Do you know what a gallon of gas in Iraq costs the Iraqis? 10 cents a gallon, they drill their own oil. So until you learn what you are claiming to know, you shouldn't be calling anyone else stupid. You're nothing more than a pseudointellectual.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Reagan years achieved their 'growth' through cheap energy and a consumer credit bubble...

Clinton years - Stock bubble...

Bush years - Housing bubble...

Unfortunately, with cheap energy gone (probably for good), the only way to see comparable growth is the find the next bubble, and there's some intellectual disagreement about whether inflating it would be the right thing to do, even if we could locate and guide the inflation of said bubble.

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

Fine, let oil prices trend where they're going to. Eventually scarcity will cause them to be high enough that other energy sources will be economically viable. My problem right now is that Barack Obama and progressives like yourself are trying to artificially inflate the price of fossil fuels in the US by restricting drilling and imposing new EPA regulations...while we don't have inexpensive alternative sources available to make up the difference, meaning our energy costs are going to spike. At the same time other countries that we compete with economically are not going to have those restrictions. How do you think THAT is going to play out? "Don't be stupid"? You might want to rethink that...

 

[Cuyo]

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

You're right, it will never be as cheap as it ONCE was, but would be a hell off alot cheaper then it is now if the politicians in charge would allow us to drill for it.
Also, until this new cheaper energy is ready to go we are stuck with Oil, so why not make it cheaper now by not importing it and drilling our own until that day comes? Makes too much sense for someone as smart as you right? Do you enjoy paying $4 at the pump right now? Or would you rather be paying $1 at the pump for a gallon of gas?
Do you know what a gallon of gas in Iraq costs the Iraqis? 10 cents a gallon, they drill their own oil. So until you learn what you are claiming to know, you shouldn't be calling anyone else stupid. Idiot.

Are you insinuating that Exxon will sell it domestically only for cost, cause they're just that damn patriotic?

OK, here's the deal. You might want to sit down. This is awkward, I hate having to be the one to do this. But apparently nobody has done it for you yet. This is gonna be hard for you, but ultimately you'll be better off.

[deep breath] OK - here goes.

You are very, very stupid. Everything you say is dogmatic, partisan crap, and completely ignorant of reality.

Alright, relax, let that soak in for awhile, then read on....





Ok.

Now, I could explain to you all the reasons you're wrong about this, eg it costs 10-100x more to drill offshore than it does in Iraq where it's seeping out of the ground; oil companies will put the corresponding spoils on the global market; OPEC will cut production to compensate and keep the price high; we only have 2% of reserves; It's political suicide to show our cards; et cetera; But it probably wouldn't matter, because you're stupid.

Don't wrack your little peanut brain trying to figure out how wrong you are about this specific issue; You need to be focused on getting the help you need. Start by turning of Fox and proceeding to the nearest library, stat.

 

[bripat9643]

What we're looking at today is rock solid by comparison.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Tee hee!

<sniff>

That sure is funny!

 

[Cuyo]

What we're looking at today is rock solid by comparison.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Tee hee!

<sniff>

That sure is funny!

Ahh, yes. Glad you think so.

The entire globe was in fucking free-fall. Gripe all you want about how sluggish the recovery is and how you believe a different approach would have worked faster or better... But it's worse? There is just no basis in fact for that angle. This wasn't the little pissant 2000 recession. The walls were coming down fast. What we're looking at today is rock solid by comparison.

Can you kindly point out where I'm wrong?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you study Keynes none of that matters, what matters is that government spending exceed a certain percentage of GDP in order to stimulate the economy in a recession. The reason Reagan's stimulus worked is that the government ran a deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, government spending fueled the Reagan recovery.

No. Actually, if you study common sense and the history of what Reagan actually did, you'll see that it was his reduction of insanely high marginal rates (70% +, top bracket, roughly 35%, bottom bracket, along with reduced corporate and capital gains tax rates, though the latter was raised again back up to 28% in 1986) that allowed the private sector to recover with little or no help from the government. The re-raise in capital gains was a mistake of course, but forced on Reagan by Democrats in order to get a budget deal for that year, a bad compromise.



More information:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182386-reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-7.html#post4061049

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182386-reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-3.html#post4058812​

 

[grunt11b]

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

You're right, it will never be as cheap as it ONCE was, but would be a hell off alot cheaper then it is now if the politicians in charge would allow us to drill for it.
Also, until this new cheaper energy is ready to go we are stuck with Oil, so why not make it cheaper now by not importing it and drilling our own until that day comes? Makes too much sense for someone as smart as you right? Do you enjoy paying $4 at the pump right now? Or would you rather be paying $1 at the pump for a gallon of gas?
Do you know what a gallon of gas in Iraq costs the Iraqis? 10 cents a gallon, they drill their own oil. So until you learn what you are claiming to know, you shouldn't be calling anyone else stupid. Idiot.

Are you insinuating that Exxon will sell it domestically only for cost, cause they're just that damn patriotic?

OK, here's the deal. You might want to sit down. This is awkward, I hate having to be the one to do this. But apparently nobody has done it for you yet. This is gonna be hard for you, but ultimately you'll be better off.

[deep breath] OK - here goes.

You are very, very stupid. Everything you say is dogmatic, partisan crap, and completely ignorant of reality.

Alright, relax, let that soak in for awhile, then read on....





Ok.

Now, I could explain to you all the reasons you're wrong about this, eg it costs 10-100x more to drill offshore than it does in Iraq where it's seeping out of the ground; oil companies will put the corresponding spoils on the global market; OPEC will cut production to compensate and keep the price high; we only have 2% of reserves; It's political suicide to show our cards; et cetera; But it probably wouldn't matter, because you're stupid.

Don't wrack your little peanut brain trying to figure out how wrong you are about this specific issue; You need to be focused on getting the help you need. Start by turning of Fox and proceeding to the nearest library, stat.

You're a Pseudointellectual. We have a 100 year supply in Alaska that the progressives will not allow us to touch, and they are finding even bigger deposits in places such as the dakotas and even in West Virginia. And believe it or not, we dont need exxon or a major oil company to drill it, there are plenty of smaller companies more than willing to do the job. Importing is what is killing us, OPEC is killing us, speculators are killing us. We need to drill our own oil and tell OPEC to fuck off.
I understand you drink the koolaid, and that is cool if it's your thing. But out of all the partisan hacks on here I am one of the only ones that will sit here and be honest enough to say that the issues we deal with today came from both sides of the isle, and yes, it's part bush's fault too.
But that doesn't mean that this is not obamas economy either, he has been in office for 2-1/2 years now, he owns it whether he likes it or not, whether you like it or not. He promised hope, and has failed to deliver.

 

[Oldstyle]

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

You're right, it will never be as cheap as it ONCE was, but would be a hell off alot cheaper then it is now if the politicians in charge would allow us to drill for it.
Also, until this new cheaper energy is ready to go we are stuck with Oil, so why not make it cheaper now by not importing it and drilling our own until that day comes? Makes too much sense for someone as smart as you right? Do you enjoy paying $4 at the pump right now? Or would you rather be paying $1 at the pump for a gallon of gas?
Do you know what a gallon of gas in Iraq costs the Iraqis? 10 cents a gallon, they drill their own oil. So until you learn what you are claiming to know, you shouldn't be calling anyone else stupid. Idiot.

Are you insinuating that Exxon will sell it domestically only for cost, cause they're just that damn patriotic?

OK, here's the deal. You might want to sit down. This is awkward, I hate having to be the one to do this. But apparently nobody has done it for you yet. This is gonna be hard for you, but ultimately you'll be better off.

[deep breath] OK - here goes.

You are very, very stupid. Everything you say is dogmatic, partisan crap, and completely ignorant of reality.

Alright, relax, let that soak in for awhile, then read on....





Ok.

Now, I could explain to you all the reasons you're wrong about this, eg it costs 10-100x more to drill offshore than it does in Iraq where it's seeping out of the ground; oil companies will put the corresponding spoils on the global market; OPEC will cut production to compensate and keep the price high; we only have 2% of reserves; It's political suicide to show our cards; et cetera; But it probably wouldn't matter, because you're stupid.

Don't wrack your little peanut brain trying to figure out how wrong you are about this specific issue; You need to be focused on getting the help you need. Start by turning of Fox and proceeding to the nearest library, stat.

You're right...it is far more expensive to drill offshore than on land. What's REALLY expensive is deep water drilling. But our drilling companies have been forced to drill in deep water because they couldn't get permits to drill in shallow water. Why? Because environmentalists like you lobbied hard to keep new drilling away from the coasts. So even though the shallow water drillers have an incredible safety record with practically zero oil spills they were deemed a "threat" to the environment. So instead of wells in shallow water that DON'T cause spills...we got wells in extremely deep water that we couldn't repair when we had an accident. Instead of wells that never spill oil we got a well that spilled millions of gallons of oil. So tell me again who it is that's being "stupid"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

You're right, it will never be as cheap as it ONCE was, but would be a hell off alot cheaper then it is now if the politicians in charge would allow us to drill for it.
Also, until this new cheaper energy is ready to go we are stuck with Oil, so why not make it cheaper now by not importing it and drilling our own until that day comes? Makes too much sense for someone as smart as you right? Do you enjoy paying $4 at the pump right now? Or would you rather be paying $1 at the pump for a gallon of gas?
Do you know what a gallon of gas in Iraq costs the Iraqis? 10 cents a gallon, they drill their own oil. So until you learn what you are claiming to know, you shouldn't be calling anyone else stupid. You're nothing more than a pseudointellectual.

You do realize that once we sell the drilling rights, it's no longer our oil, right?

 

[Cuyo]

You're right, it will never be as cheap as it ONCE was, but would be a hell off alot cheaper then it is now if the politicians in charge would allow us to drill for it.
Also, until this new cheaper energy is ready to go we are stuck with Oil, so why not make it cheaper now by not importing it and drilling our own until that day comes? Makes too much sense for someone as smart as you right? Do you enjoy paying $4 at the pump right now? Or would you rather be paying $1 at the pump for a gallon of gas?
Do you know what a gallon of gas in Iraq costs the Iraqis? 10 cents a gallon, they drill their own oil. So until you learn what you are claiming to know, you shouldn't be calling anyone else stupid. Idiot.

Are you insinuating that Exxon will sell it domestically only for cost, cause they're just that damn patriotic?

OK, here's the deal. You might want to sit down. This is awkward, I hate having to be the one to do this. But apparently nobody has done it for you yet. This is gonna be hard for you, but ultimately you'll be better off.

[deep breath] OK - here goes.

You are very, very stupid. Everything you say is dogmatic, partisan crap, and completely ignorant of reality.

Alright, relax, let that soak in for awhile, then read on....





Ok.

Now, I could explain to you all the reasons you're wrong about this, eg it costs 10-100x more to drill offshore than it does in Iraq where it's seeping out of the ground; oil companies will put the corresponding spoils on the global market; OPEC will cut production to compensate and keep the price high; we only have 2% of reserves; It's political suicide to show our cards; et cetera; But it probably wouldn't matter, because you're stupid.

Don't wrack your little peanut brain trying to figure out how wrong you are about this specific issue; You need to be focused on getting the help you need. Start by turning of Fox and proceeding to the nearest library, stat.

You're right...it is far more expensive to drill offshore than on land. What's REALLY expensive is deep water drilling. But our drilling companies have been forced to drill in deep water because they couldn't get permits to drill in shallow water. Why? Because environmentalists like you lobbied hard to keep new drilling away from the coasts. So even though the shallow water drillers have an incredible safety record with practically zero oil spills they were deemed a "threat" to the environment. So instead of wells in shallow water that DON'T cause spills...we got wells in extremely deep water that we couldn't repair when we had an accident. Instead of wells that never spill oil we got a well that spilled millions of gallons of oil. So tell me again who it is that's being "stupid"?

You guys are missing the point.

Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?

Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...

Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?

The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you insinuating that Exxon will sell it domestically only for cost, cause they're just that damn patriotic?

OK, here's the deal. You might want to sit down. This is awkward, I hate having to be the one to do this. But apparently nobody has done it for you yet. This is gonna be hard for you, but ultimately you'll be better off.

[deep breath] OK - here goes.

You are very, very stupid. Everything you say is dogmatic, partisan crap, and completely ignorant of reality.

Alright, relax, let that soak in for awhile, then read on....





Ok.

Now, I could explain to you all the reasons you're wrong about this, eg it costs 10-100x more to drill offshore than it does in Iraq where it's seeping out of the ground; oil companies will put the corresponding spoils on the global market; OPEC will cut production to compensate and keep the price high; we only have 2% of reserves; It's political suicide to show our cards; et cetera; But it probably wouldn't matter, because you're stupid.

Don't wrack your little peanut brain trying to figure out how wrong you are about this specific issue; You need to be focused on getting the help you need. Start by turning of Fox and proceeding to the nearest library, stat.

You're right...it is far more expensive to drill offshore than on land. What's REALLY expensive is deep water drilling. But our drilling companies have been forced to drill in deep water because they couldn't get permits to drill in shallow water. Why? Because environmentalists like you lobbied hard to keep new drilling away from the coasts. So even though the shallow water drillers have an incredible safety record with practically zero oil spills they were deemed a "threat" to the environment. So instead of wells in shallow water that DON'T cause spills...we got wells in extremely deep water that we couldn't repair when we had an accident. Instead of wells that never spill oil we got a well that spilled millions of gallons of oil. So tell me again who it is that's being "stupid"?

You guys are missing the point.

Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?

Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...

Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?

The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.

So you're admitting that progressives HAVE blocked shallow water and Alaskan drilling? And you're admitting that if we lifted those bans it would be "open sesame"? So you've admitted that progressives have purposely driven the price of oil up? I don't think you have any concept at how much oil it's estimated that we have in untapped areas of Alaska. It's a huge amount. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke because we don't produce enough domestic oil. So why don't we do something about that? It's not that our "low hanging fruit" is gone...it's that progressives like yourself haven't let us harvest it...instead forcing us to go after the "high-hanging fruit".

 

[Cuyo]

You're right...it is far more expensive to drill offshore than on land. What's REALLY expensive is deep water drilling. But our drilling companies have been forced to drill in deep water because they couldn't get permits to drill in shallow water. Why? Because environmentalists like you lobbied hard to keep new drilling away from the coasts. So even though the shallow water drillers have an incredible safety record with practically zero oil spills they were deemed a "threat" to the environment. So instead of wells in shallow water that DON'T cause spills...we got wells in extremely deep water that we couldn't repair when we had an accident. Instead of wells that never spill oil we got a well that spilled millions of gallons of oil. So tell me again who it is that's being "stupid"?

You guys are missing the point.

Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?

Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...

Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?

The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.

So you're admitting that progressives HAVE blocked shallow water and Alaskan drilling? And you're admitting that if we lifted those bans it would be "open sesame"? So you've admitted that progressives have purposely driven the price of oil up. I don't think you have any concept at how much oil it's estimated that we have in untapped areas of Alaska. It's a huge amount. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke because we don't produce enough domestic oil. So why don't we do something about that?

First of all I said 'even if I stipulate.' I didn't actually stipulate.

Second, no. My statement was strictly in terms of 'open sesame notwithstanding.' In other words, even if we immediately exploit everything we have, it would do little to nothing. The big producers would just cut production to compensate until we run out; Of course then we've expended all of our bargaining capital and we can get ready for the REAL reaming to begin.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well let's see...

The economy was in the dumper when Reagan was elected, the masses were depressed and gripped by the idea that Ameican ascendancy was ended and that the American dream was past.

That was after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.

We will soon have had 4 years of Barrack Obama.

The masses are adopting the same mind set as was held under the shroud of the Carter policies.

If the next President takes office and initiates a period of 80 months of 80 months of expansion and the economy begins to grow at the rate of 8% and we attain full employment again, that would be nice.

If the current President knows how to ignite the growth in the economy and is not doing so, that would be almost treasonous. If he has no clue, which is my belief, that is not criminal, just too bad. Too bad for him, but moreso for us. I guess we'll know more about this after his big, belated, speech.

The country divides into two groups: Those who remember how the Carter years felt and those who are finding out.

However, I think that beyond the entrenched lines of ideology, the vast majority of those in between move to whatever party is not in the White House during times of economic travail, and that's too bad for us all, really, given that recessions are cyclical and not necessarily the result of bad policy. It's a question of who knows what to do when they occur as opposed to those who don't. Democrats don't know. Conservative-libertarians of whatever party affiliation do.

If it's a Democrat in charge when things go south, that's good for America because in all likelihood since 1980 a Republican who knows what he's doing will be the next president. If a Republican, that's bad because the best possible policies in place to weather it out will be replaced by stupidity that will exacerbate things. LOL!

In other words, the non-ideological middle follow their wallets and blindly luck out or damn themselves without any clue about what works and what doesn't.

More information:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182386-reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-7.html#post4061049

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182386-reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-3.html#post4058812

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182386-reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-8.html#post4061176​

 

[code1211]

If the economy we had was like the economy that Reagan had when he came into office our recession would be long over.

It isn't, so comparisons like these just show us how ignorant some of us really are about all things macro-economic.

Ironically, we now have what is closer to what free market conservatives want. The market is taking jobs away from 'overpaid' Americans and moving them to 50 cents an hour type labor markets in classic free market fashion.

You are willfully and hopelessly ignorant. Money flows like water and seeks the place where it is at equilibrium. When we were the only economy on the planet that wasn't bombed into rubble, it flowed here. When options started to become avaiable, some of the money flowed to those options.

As those options equalled the attactive parts of our economy and the other parts of those other options remained more attractive, the money flowed and continues to flow to them.

Nobody is moving any jobs anywhere. The production of goods is moving to other attractive options and these options are more attractive than the USA. This cannot be argued since the results bears this out.

You can pass a law to regulate the flow of money and jobs and commerce, but, at the end, the money will flow where it flows. You might as well pass a law that water will only flow uphill.

If we want jobs to come back to the USA, we need to become the more attractive option once again. Yes, it is that simple.

Suing Boeing for creating 2000 non-union jobs or raiding and closing down Gibson for creating 400 non-union jobs is NOT the way to accomplish this.

 

[code1211]

The Reagan years achieved their 'growth' through cheap energy and a consumer credit bubble...

Clinton years - Stock bubble...

Bush years - Housing bubble...

Unfortunately, with cheap energy gone (probably for good), the only way to see comparable growth is the find the next bubble, and there's some intellectual disagreement about whether inflating it would be the right thing to do, even if we could locate and guide the inflation of said bubble.

So where is Obama's "bubble"? I'll give you a hint...don't waste a lot of time looking because there isn't one...nor should you EXPECT one anytime soon. Bubbles, as you put it, are the result of fiscal policy. Obama won't have a bubble because his fiscal policy is such a disaster.

Lol, really? Is it obamas 'fiscal policies?' Naw, I think its far more likely that its just you talking shit because you can.

Bubbles are not an inherently good thing, and consumers are apprehensive to invest after seeing the devastating result of the last contraction.

Fiscal policy, you kill me. What about current fiscal policy is oh so dissimilar from the last administration? Taxes are the same or lower. Interest rates are at historic lows. What brilliant policy is obama remiss in declaring?

The Obama Administration is actively expanding the review and penalization of business throught the EPA without the benenfit of law to back it up. Just the benefit of executive order. He has also planned or executed the plan to add 16,000 additional IRS agents to help to expand the policy of penalization.

They also:
Mandate Healthcare expenses
Sue Boeing for creating non-union jobs
Raid and shut down Gibson for creating 400 non-union jobs
Continuously rail that the rich need to be penalized and that taxes need to be "fair".
Enforce laws selectively according to sponsored agendas
Actively oppose policy stability. Bernanke's promise on interest rates was a departure from this.

In short, Obama and his cadre of marauding anti business greenies are working overtime to intimidate and demoralize anyone who might want to start the economy moving again.

He and they are very, very successful at what they are trying to do.

Our problem is not that he's failing. Our problem is that he's succeeding.

 

[Trajan]

The Reagan years achieved their 'growth' through cheap energy and a consumer credit bubble...

Clinton years - Stock bubble...

Bush years - Housing bubble...

Unfortunately, with cheap energy gone (probably for good), the only way to see comparable growth is the find the next bubble, and there's some intellectual disagreement about whether inflating it would be the right thing to do, even if we could locate and guide the inflation of said bubble.

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.

I am sorry but I have heard that since the embargo in the 70's till, now, and its just as misleading Cuyo. That argument has been made during and after every oil bull market or unforeseen disruption. then when it drops back to 30-40 dollars its not an issue and no one cares anymore and, the prices in say the EU are not so much driven by markets or supply but by very high tax rates on petrol products.

and to claim that paying say Exxon compared to paying Aramco or Petrobras or Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. doesn't make a difference, well I am sorry ole chum, but thats just not true. Taxes and royalties?

and what of natural/liquid gas?

 

[Trajan]

Let's start out with the first assertion



Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

Obama started with all of the problems you mention and either did nothing to improve them or actively made them worse.

Reagan started with problems that you ignor and corrected them.

It's not whether you get knocked down. It's whether you get back up.

Right now, we're flat our our collective back and the Big 0 is helping us to roll into a grave.

Pretty hard to fight recession when faced with 50% of Congress stuck on "Do Whatever it takes," and the "Party of NO." That is what Treason is. But I do oppose Obama for supporting the corporations over the people. That is is inexcusable.

thats such a horse-hockey argument its hard to take you seriously........

simplified for the history challenged ;


- Reagan never had congress, he had the senate for 6 and the house....never.

-Clinton had both for 2 years then lost both, which then lead to a balanced budget and a huge positive push as to deficit and debt reduction........


-obama had the house and senate and filibuster proof supra majority for 8.5 months ) obamacare remember?)then he had a budgetary reconciliation majority for the remainder of the 2 years.......now, he doesn't have the house


when you parse that its clear, both Reagan and Clinton managed, against fractured congresses to lead and enact postive forward momentum and policies that benefited the country , no matter the issues they faced.

obama despite his advantages has not, he did stop the bleeding ( MAYBE), at tremendous cost, now what? is that it? .......slice it anyway you like, the result is the same.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you insinuating that Exxon will sell it domestically only for cost, cause they're just that damn patriotic?

OK, here's the deal. You might want to sit down. This is awkward, I hate having to be the one to do this. But apparently nobody has done it for you yet. This is gonna be hard for you, but ultimately you'll be better off.

[deep breath] OK - here goes.

You are very, very stupid. Everything you say is dogmatic, partisan crap, and completely ignorant of reality.

Alright, relax, let that soak in for awhile, then read on....





Ok.

Now, I could explain to you all the reasons you're wrong about this, eg it costs 10-100x more to drill offshore than it does in Iraq where it's seeping out of the ground; oil companies will put the corresponding spoils on the global market; OPEC will cut production to compensate and keep the price high; we only have 2% of reserves; It's political suicide to show our cards; et cetera; But it probably wouldn't matter, because you're stupid.

Don't wrack your little peanut brain trying to figure out how wrong you are about this specific issue; You need to be focused on getting the help you need. Start by turning of Fox and proceeding to the nearest library, stat.

You're right...it is far more expensive to drill offshore than on land. What's REALLY expensive is deep water drilling. But our drilling companies have been forced to drill in deep water because they couldn't get permits to drill in shallow water. Why? Because environmentalists like you lobbied hard to keep new drilling away from the coasts. So even though the shallow water drillers have an incredible safety record with practically zero oil spills they were deemed a "threat" to the environment. So instead of wells in shallow water that DON'T cause spills...we got wells in extremely deep water that we couldn't repair when we had an accident. Instead of wells that never spill oil we got a well that spilled millions of gallons of oil. So tell me again who it is that's being "stupid"?

You guys are missing the point.

Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?

Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...

Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?

The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.

We look offshore because no one allows us to look closer. There is TONS of oil that is far easier to get to but the libs won't let us get to it for environmental reasons. The sad part is that it causes MORE harm to the environment as that oil is then gained from places that have zero environmental standards.

In another note, you claim that oil rights that we sell does not mean that the oil is sold to us. What the libs are going for is NO drilling but if the recipient is the issue then why not lease the drilling out and put in stipulations in the agreement? Is that impossible for some reason?