Stephanie Cutter: Whoring It Up

[8537]

Reagan didn't have a Republican Congress like Obamination had with his Democrap Congress when he passed the Porkulus and Obamacare which has made this worse.

Obamination's goons are just scum making up bullshit to make him look good.

They claim they are the reason why oil drilling permits passed under Bush are now providing domestic oil, while they cover up the FACT that they are preventing new oil dilling permits and even giving American taxpayer money to Brazil for their oil drilling exploration.

You got that right.

The goon ain't doing so good either. Not only do they look stupid, but they are transfering that to Obama.

why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

 

[8537]

There is no end to the lies a CON$ervoFascist is stupid enough to believe.

2/3 of the drilling permits are going unused and any new domestic oil that is found is capped. Remember the new oil found by BP's deepwater horizon site was capped but the cap blew. The only oil from that new find that made it onto the market was the oil skimmed off from the leak. Brazil on the other hand puts any new oil they find on the market.

very true... they cap it and hold it, it doesn't hit the market....and leases they have gotten for the land, they don't even drill sometimes, they just sit on it....so that prices stay high and they can rape us on prices... it's amazing how little people really know on the topic.

Why don't you enlighten us. Even though this is a thread about what a liar Stephanie Cutter is.

Why would they sit on it if they could be monetizing it ?

Because the demand for oil is significantly inelastic and they understand that both the oil that's been processed and the oil in the ground will be worth more if they leave the submerged oil, submerged.

why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

 

[edthecynic]

There is no end to the lies a CON$ervoFascist is stupid enough to believe.

2/3 of the drilling permits are going unused and any new domestic oil that is found is capped. Remember the new oil found by BP's deepwater horizon site was capped but the cap blew. The only oil from that new find that made it onto the market was the oil skimmed off from the leak. Brazil on the other hand puts any new oil they find on the market.

very true... they cap it and hold it, it doesn't hit the market....and leases they have gotten for the land, they don't even drill sometimes, they just sit on it....so that prices stay high and they can rape us on prices... it's amazing how little people really know on the topic.

Why don't you enlighten us. Even though this is a thread about what a liar Stephanie Cutter is.

Why would they sit on it if they could be monetizing it ?

And who are "they" ?

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much? Care already answered your question for you. If "they," the oil monopoly, put the new oil on the market it should drive the price down of all their oil, but by keeping it off the market they keep prices high.

The only new oil going on the market comes from small independent oil companies, not the big oil cartel. If you want to see the prices come down, only lease land to the small independents, any land leased by the oil monopoly is only to keep it away from the independents. That is why there were over 7,000 drilling permits that were sitting unused in 2011 alone.

 

[8537]

very true... they cap it and hold it, it doesn't hit the market....and leases they have gotten for the land, they don't even drill sometimes, they just sit on it....so that prices stay high and they can rape us on prices... it's amazing how little people really know on the topic.

Why don't you enlighten us. Even though this is a thread about what a liar Stephanie Cutter is.

Why would they sit on it if they could be monetizing it ?

And who are "they" ?

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much?

I've seen no evidence it's an act.

 

[uscitizen]

Who cares what Stephane Cutter says.
I think this is the first time I have seen/heard her name.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why does the author use the end of the 2nd 1980's recession as the benchmark? It would be a more apt comparison to use the first recession that Reagan experienced, much like Obama.

and why the heck are they relying on the Household Survey to measure job creation?

Because she's trying to say that the 25 million jobs Reagan created happened during the recovery she's talking about (and was less than Obama's), not during the recession........and I notice you guys always cut off your claims about Obama being screwed over at 2009. You don't want to see what he did after 2009.

I LOVE progressive mathematics ....

25-250= 25.......

 

[Listening]

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much?

Coming from you Ed, that's a complement. What you call dumb, the rest of us call sane. Or are you going to tell me how I listen to Rush (for the 10th time) when you have no evidence to support your accusation ?

Care already answered your question for you. If "they," the oil monopoly, put the new oil on the market it should drive the price down of all their oil, but by keeping it off the market they keep prices high.

Sounds wonderful. Except that Care is only repeating the same bleating that comes from the left on this subject. Oil is about as commodity as you can get...if you have completed wells that are producing. You will always keep your most profitable wells open and producing if there is demand and you can justify the cost of doing it. Contrary to popular belief, oil companies don't collude. They work at whatever market prices are available to them. But not all oil is the same in several dimensions. First, there is the type of oil. Canadian bituman based crudes sell at huge discounts compared to the benchmark crudes. Many midwest refiners have tooled up to handle the additional gas oils and sulfur that come with these crudes. If they can't handle it, the have to look elsewhere and pay more for crude. The recent shutdown of about 750,000 BPD refining capacity on the east coast was because those refiners can't handle sour crudes and are more configured to make gasoline at a time when diesel is king. Oil is also not the same relative to where it can be converted. We can't refine all the finished products we consume....far from it. So, even if you can produce oil locally, if you can't displace existing production or export it...where's it gonna go...to the middle east...where it costs next to nothing to get it out of the ground ?

Chevron is going to sit on it's oil while Exxon produces like crazy ? Chevron stock holders are going to allow that ? Maybe you need to get a new brand of weed.

The only new oil going on the market comes from small independent oil companies, not the big oil cartel. If you want to see the prices come down, only lease land to the small independents, any land leased by the oil monopoly is only to keep it away from the independents. That is why there were over 7,000 drilling permits that were sitting unused in 2011 alone.

They are sitting unused because of the lag associated with getting it out of the ground. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time to get a field developed and produced. Oil companies have been around long enough to see the boom and bust cycle and are very cautious. If there was a high probability...you can bet they would be going after it. Oil companies deal leases just like anyone else. Texaco used to sell off leases that didn't meet certain producing quotas...even though they were good leases. Why ? Because of the overhead associated with a lease. It was the same for a 10 barrel a day well or a 10,000 barrel a day well.

So, I think your the one who shown that you can get to a left wing talking points BS site and throw down enough bull to make people think you know what you are talking about.

Better luck next time asswipe.

 

[Listening]

Why don't you enlighten us. Even though this is a thread about what a liar Stephanie Cutter is.

Why would they sit on it if they could be monetizing it ?

And who are "they" ?

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much?

I've seen no evidence it's an act.

Do you stand behind Cutters conclusions or don't you ?

Your are gutless moron whose tried to derail this thread for your own sport.

You're not smart enough to detect an "act" dickweed.

 

[Listening]

Who cares what Stephane Cutter says.
I think this is the first time I have seen/heard her name.

She's the deputy campaign director for Obama.

She's been all over the airwaves splashing some of the most retarded tripe there is.

It's no wonder people pull back from politics. When Axelrod puts out a woman who will whore for her boss......it pisses them off.

 

[8537]

Why does the author use the end of the 2nd 1980's recession as the benchmark? It would be a more apt comparison to use the first recession that Reagan experienced, much like Obama.

and why the heck are they relying on the Household Survey to measure job creation?

Because she's trying to say that the 25 million jobs Reagan created happened during the recovery she's talking about (and was less than Obama's), not during the recession........and I notice you guys always cut off your claims about Obama being screwed over at 2009. You don't want to see what he did after 2009.

I LOVE progressive mathematics ....

25-250= 25.......

Oh, hey Mr Nick! perhaps YOU can explain why you would use household survey figures to calculate job creation numbers, and why you would exclude the first recession of Reagan's term and start your date from the end of the 2nd recession of his term.

I'll wait...

 

[8537]

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much?

I've seen no evidence it's an act.

Do you stand behind Cutters conclusions or don't you ?

Your are gutless moron whose tried to derail this thread for your own sport.

You're not smart enough to detect an "act" dickweed.

Speaking of gutless, why do you continue to run away from my questions?

why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

 

[edthecynic]

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much?

Coming from you Ed, that's a complement. What you call dumb, the rest of us call sane. Or are you going to tell me how I listen to Rush (for the 10th time) when you have no evidence to support your accusation ?

Care already answered your question for you. If "they," the oil monopoly, put the new oil on the market it should drive the price down of all their oil, but by keeping it off the market they keep prices high.

Sounds wonderful. Except that Care is only repeating the same bleating that comes from the left on this subject. Oil is about as commodity as you can get...if you have completed wells that are producing. You will always keep your most profitable wells open and producing if there is demand and you can justify the cost of doing it. Contrary to popular belief, oil companies don't collude. They work at whatever market prices are available to them. But not all oil is the same in several dimensions. First, there is the type of oil. Canadian bituman based crudes sell at huge discounts compared to the benchmark crudes. Many midwest refiners have tooled up to handle the additional gas oils and sulfur that come with these crudes. If they can't handle it, the have to look elsewhere and pay more for crude. The recent shutdown of about 750,000 BPD refining capacity on the east coast was because those refiners can't handle sour crudes and are more configured to make gasoline at a time when diesel is king. Oil is also not the same relative to where it can be converted. We can't refine all the finished products we consume....far from it. So, even if you can produce oil locally, if you can't displace existing production or export it...where's it gonna go...to the middle east...where it costs next to nothing to get it out of the ground ?

Chevron is going to sit on it's oil while Exxon produces like crazy ? Chevron stock holders are going to allow that ? Maybe you need to get a new brand of weed.

The only new oil going on the market comes from small independent oil companies, not the big oil cartel. If you want to see the prices come down, only lease land to the small independents, any land leased by the oil monopoly is only to keep it away from the independents. That is why there were over 7,000 drilling permits that were sitting unused in 2011 alone.

They are sitting unused because of the lag associated with getting it out of the ground. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time to get a field developed and produced. Oil companies have been around long enough to see the boom and bust cycle and are very cautious. If there was a high probability...you can bet they would be going after it. Oil companies deal leases just like anyone else. Texaco used to sell off leases that didn't meet certain producing quotas...even though they were good leases. Why ? Because of the overhead associated with a lease. It was the same for a 10 barrel a day well or a 10,000 barrel a day well.

So, I think your the one who shown that you can get to a left wing talking points BS site and throw down enough bull to make people think you know what you are talking about.

Better luck next time asswipe.

Of all the stupid crap you post, that is easily the stupidest.
Thank you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'd think they'd attempt to understand how easily they are lied to.

Now, that's funny coming from the left.

Do we get to recount the whole GTS experience again ?

Why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

Why not start in January 1981? Under Reagan, despite 2 recessions, we had more jobs than the day he took office, in September 1983.

Under Obama, with only one recession, we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.

 

[Listening]

Don't you think you are milking that perpetual dumb act just a little bit too much?

Coming from you Ed, that's a complement. What you call dumb, the rest of us call sane. Or are you going to tell me how I listen to Rush (for the 10th time) when you have no evidence to support your accusation ?



Sounds wonderful. Except that Care is only repeating the same bleating that comes from the left on this subject. Oil is about as commodity as you can get...if you have completed wells that are producing. You will always keep your most profitable wells open and producing if there is demand and you can justify the cost of doing it. Contrary to popular belief, oil companies don't collude. They work at whatever market prices are available to them. But not all oil is the same in several dimensions. First, there is the type of oil. Canadian bituman based crudes sell at huge discounts compared to the benchmark crudes. Many midwest refiners have tooled up to handle the additional gas oils and sulfur that come with these crudes. If they can't handle it, the have to look elsewhere and pay more for crude. The recent shutdown of about 750,000 BPD refining capacity on the east coast was because those refiners can't handle sour crudes and are more configured to make gasoline at a time when diesel is king. Oil is also not the same relative to where it can be converted. We can't refine all the finished products we consume....far from it. So, even if you can produce oil locally, if you can't displace existing production or export it...where's it gonna go...to the middle east...where it costs next to nothing to get it out of the ground ?

Chevron is going to sit on it's oil while Exxon produces like crazy ? Chevron stock holders are going to allow that ? Maybe you need to get a new brand of weed.

The only new oil going on the market comes from small independent oil companies, not the big oil cartel. If you want to see the prices come down, only lease land to the small independents, any land leased by the oil monopoly is only to keep it away from the independents. That is why there were over 7,000 drilling permits that were sitting unused in 2011 alone.

They are sitting unused because of the lag associated with getting it out of the ground. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time to get a field developed and produced. Oil companies have been around long enough to see the boom and bust cycle and are very cautious. If there was a high probability...you can bet they would be going after it. Oil companies deal leases just like anyone else. Texaco used to sell off leases that didn't meet certain producing quotas...even though they were good leases. Why ? Because of the overhead associated with a lease. It was the same for a 10 barrel a day well or a 10,000 barrel a day well.

So, I think your the one who shown that you can get to a left wing talking points BS site and throw down enough bull to make people think you know what you are talking about.

Better luck next time asswipe.

Of all the stupid crap you post, that is easily the stupidest.
Thank you.

By all means Ed...

Given that I just shoved your talking points up your ass...

Please show us how you are going to use that one point to demonstrate you are right. I'll be waiting for your evidence.

 

[Listening]

I've seen no evidence it's an act.

Do you stand behind Cutters conclusions or don't you ?

Your are gutless moron whose tried to derail this thread for your own sport.

You're not smart enough to detect an "act" dickweed.

Speaking of gutless, why do you continue to run away from my questions?

why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

You can keep trying to derail it.

She's still a lying whore.

And you are proving to be a pretty big ass.

 

[8537]

Why not start in January 1981? Under Reagan, despite 2 recessions, we had more jobs than the day he took office, in September 1983.

Under Obama, with only one recession, we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.

Yes indeedy! By August of 1983 we had improved on the number when Reagan took office of 91,031,0000. By a couple hundred thousand.

Two recessions.

But the fraudulent author instead starts at the end of the 2nd recession - and then relies on household date to discuss job creation.

 

[Erand7899]

Caption this:

I hate my job ?

Answer this: Why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

What second recession? The Reagan recession occurred from July 1981 through Nov 1982, and was actually caused by the fed to wring out the high inflation rate that was the hallmark of the Carter years. Unemployment peaked at 10.7% in Nov 1982, and was down in the 7.2% range, and falling when Reagan ran for reelection. Unemployment was at 5.3% when Reagan left office.

The next recession was in July 1990 through Mar 1991, and Reagan had been out of office over a year before that event took place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not start in January 1981? Under Reagan, despite 2 recessions, we had more jobs than the day he took office, in September 1983.

Under Obama, with only one recession, we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.

Yes indeedy! By August of 1983 we had improved on the number when Reagan took office of 91,031,0000. By a couple hundred thousand.

Two recessions.

But the fraudulent author instead starts at the end of the 2nd recession - and then relies on household date to discuss job creation.

Sounds like Reagan moved into the plus column, 14 months before the election.
Despite 2 recessions.
With Obama, we're still in the minus column, less than 3 months before the election.

By the election, we were up nearly 5 million jobs under Reagan.
Are we going to be up any, under Obama?

 

[8537]

Caption this:

I hate my job ?

Answer this: Why is the author's benchmark Reagan's 2nd recession? and why does the author use Household Survey figures to discuss job creation numbers?

What second recession?

Between 1980 and 1982 there were two separate and distinct recessions, both orchestrated by the Fed.

The Reagan recession occurred from July 1981 through Nov 1982, and was actually caused by the fed to wring out the high inflation rate that was the hallmark of the Carter years. Unemployment peaked at 10.7%

So, do you think the Fed's move to monetarism was (1) stupid) (2) smart (3) unnecessarily severe? Remind who appointed that Fed Chair. (it wasn't Reagan)

 

[8537]

Why not start in January 1981? Under Reagan, despite 2 recessions, we had more jobs than the day he took office, in September 1983.

Under Obama, with only one recession, we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.

Yes indeedy! By August of 1983 we had improved on the number when Reagan took office of 91,031,0000. By a couple hundred thousand.

Two recessions.

But the fraudulent author instead starts at the end of the 2nd recession - and then relies on household date to discuss job creation.

Sounds like Reagan moved into the plus column, 14 months before the election.
Despite 2 recessions.
With Obama, we're still in the minus column, less than 3 months before the election.

The economy was losing 9% of it's annualized income and 800,000 jobs when Obama took office.

When Reagan took office it was creating 95,000 per month and gaining 7.6% of income, annualized.