Are You Voting For Obama? Then Remember This...
Little Angel
2012/04/30 20:25:38
|
|
|||||
|
20 votes
|
|
17% | ||
|
68 votes
|
|
58% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
8% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
3% | ||
|
16 votes
|
|
14% | ||
What are Americans really thinking? Both the Democrats and Republicans
have resorted to name calling. Now they are trying to make the "Killing
of Bin Laden" ( this is a questionable event to me) a big issue.
What I really want to know is what makes them qualified to be the Leader
of our Country. It seems to me that neither Party has done a very good
job of taking care of things and in some cases have made things a lot
worse.
Top Opinion
-
Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/04/30 20:41:44No, I will not vote for Obama because I want a real change...
+36I didn't buy the "Hope and Change" hype in 2008.I looked into Obama's associations & background.And then I predicted Obama would be the most Progressive President since Carter.But Obama turned out to be something even worst then Carter!
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters..
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
ht...
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters..
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
http://online.wsj.com/article...
Petrobras 10000
“The PETROBRAS 10000 is a double hull dynamically positioned drillship capable of operating in moderate environments and water depths up to 10,000 ft (3,048 m) and upgradeable to 12,000 ft (3,657 m) using 18 3/4in 15,000 BOP and 21in OD marine drilling riser….”
Max drilling depth 37,500 ft
http://www.deepwater.com/fw/m...
Energy Resources
Petrobras gets permit for U.S. deep waters
Published: March. 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM
WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) -- Washington has given Petrobras America Inc. permission to start oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, a regulator said.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement gave Petrobras approval to use a floating production storage offloading facility at its Cascade-Chinook project in the Gulf of Mexico…..”
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_N...
Apparently you're counting all those natural gas wells, they are not quite the oil rigs are they? I fact Barry only approved 400 new leases for oil in 2010
March 20, 2012 1:44 P.M
Obama is barnstorming the west — blasting oil companies, trying to convince voters that he supports an “all of the above” policy, and reminding them that drilling has increased since his tenure. But that won’t work for five reasons.
1) No one believes that Obama is sincere. In 2008, in the hope-and-change adulation days when he was running for president, he talked about skyrocketing energy prices as a necessary cost for his vision of a desired cap-and-trade law. Energy secretary–designate Chu talked about the desirability of high European-like gasoline prices. And soon-to-be interior secretary Senator Salazar infamously bragged that even $10-a-gallon gas would not change his mind about new offshore drilling. All that has been so widely reported that one can even hear it at the gas pump — where those filling up mumble that Obama wanted these high gas prices.
In response to that political problem, the Obama team has not yet explained why they no longer believe the above. Secretary Chu merely concedes that he’s changed his mind, but that was an embarrassingly political concession. In other words, the public believes that Obama and his associates privately still think that high gas prices help the environment, cool the planet, ma...
March 20, 2012 1:44 P.M
Obama is barnstorming the west — blasting oil companies, trying to convince voters that he supports an “all of the above” policy, and reminding them that drilling has increased since his tenure. But that won’t work for five reasons.
1) No one believes that Obama is sincere. In 2008, in the hope-and-change adulation days when he was running for president, he talked about skyrocketing energy prices as a necessary cost for his vision of a desired cap-and-trade law. Energy secretary–designate Chu talked about the desirability of high European-like gasoline prices. And soon-to-be interior secretary Senator Salazar infamously bragged that even $10-a-gallon gas would not change his mind about new offshore drilling. All that has been so widely reported that one can even hear it at the gas pump — where those filling up mumble that Obama wanted these high gas prices.
In response to that political problem, the Obama team has not yet explained why they no longer believe the above. Secretary Chu merely concedes that he’s changed his mind, but that was an embarrassingly political concession. In other words, the public believes that Obama and his associates privately still think that high gas prices help the environment, cool the planet, make preferred subsidized green energy viable, and curb the gas-guzzling culture of the American middle class, but with a wink and a nod simply cannot say that any longer since they are now in a reelection cycle. And because Obama does not now either defend or refute his embarrassing remarks about the price of power needing to “skyrocket,” or similar views of his subordinates, voters believe that he will probably go back to his earlier positions if reelected or out of office.
2) The argument that under Obama oil production is up has the same ironic twist, and is more likely to hurt than help Obama: American oil production is up despite Obama rather than because of him, given that he has radically cut exploration on public lands and has been unable to affect fracking and horizontal drilling on private lands. He said not a word from 2009–12 about the revolution in oil drilling at a time when he was monotonously bragging about “millions of green jobs” and pouring hundreds of millions of federal dollars into failures like Solyndra. The public also knows that. Obama more or less expressed an antipathy for new oil production when he once talked about “tuning up” cars and inflating tires in lieu of new drilling, and then trumped that with recent talk of uniquely American algae potential, a fuel resource unknown to most of us. Had Sarah Palin said that, well . . .
3) Even less appealing is Obama’s insistence that drilling has only long-term benefits and is no short-term remedy. If so, why then brag that oil production is up since 2009, when none of the increase is due to Obama’s own approval of new federal leases, but is instead due to both Bush’s approvals and the vision of private enterprise? This argument really works against Obama because of its inherent selfishness: “I will take credit for my predecessor’s investment that paid off on my watch, but will not make any commensurate investment by opening up federal leases for my successor.” Or “I will subsidize green power and ignore private oil concerns, but in a political pinch will go silent about what I was for and what failed, while bragging about what I was indifferent to or against — which succeeded.” People are not stupid and know all this.
4) Obama argues that more American oil won’t greatly affect a global market. Aside from the fact that in a tight market psychology rules and even a modest increase from a major producer in times of crises can lower prices, Obama himself does not believe this. We know that because his administration is pressuring the Saudis to pump more and wants to tap the strategic reserve. In other words, a million barrels here and there from the Saudis and the reserve will calm markets and lower prices in a way that fresh American oil would not have? To be consistent and honest, Obama would have to either push the reserve, the Saudis, and new drilling here, or admit that all three won’t do much in a vast global market, given their relatively small percentages of the global daily production.
5) Obama borrowed more in three years and two months than did Bush in eight years. The massive aggregate debt and gargantuan deficits depress the value of the dollar, and help to spike oil prices; a president by the very nature of his budget does have influence on how much oil a dollar overseas will buy.
I can understand why Obama is furious about the politics of oil, but frantically doing derrick photo-ops simply looks desperate and cynical. Far better would be to explain to the American people why his team once wanted higher fossil-fuel prices and why that was or is wise or is no longer true; and, why he has radically curbed new leasing on federal lands, and why that is wise or at least once was wise from 2009-12; and why tapping the reserve or getting other foreign nations to pump more is helpful in a way additional American production would not have been; and why he will insist on budget discipline and restore balance in the purchasing power of overseas dollars.
If he can’t do that, then he should not wonder why most fault him for their spiraling gas bills....."
http://www.nationalreview.com...
Obama’s Fuzzy Oil Production Math
Bush administration actions have led to gains in supply.
Updated at 8:45 p.m. on March 17 to include White House comment.
He doesn’t want to admit it, but President Obama is taking credit for something George W. Bush did.
The White House is touting federal data that shows domestic oil production is at its highest level since 2003. In a blog post last week, Obama’s top climate and energy aide, Heather Zichal, points to Energy Information Administration data that shows oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf (which basically means the Gulf of Mexico) has increased by more than a third between 2008 and 2010.
EIA Administrator Richard Newell says it takes several years for any major federal policy action -- such as issuing leases -- to affect domestic oil production.
“Even if one has development drilling going on, there is about a one- to three-year lag between drilling and production that one will see,” Newell said during a break in a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Thursday. “If you’re on a longer term -- for example, new leases being issued in an area -- you can be on a several-year time frame before you can see a relationship between new leases and production. So there are significant lags.”
While Bus...
Obama’s Fuzzy Oil Production Math
Bush administration actions have led to gains in supply.
Updated at 8:45 p.m. on March 17 to include White House comment.
He doesn’t want to admit it, but President Obama is taking credit for something George W. Bush did.
The White House is touting federal data that shows domestic oil production is at its highest level since 2003. In a blog post last week, Obama’s top climate and energy aide, Heather Zichal, points to Energy Information Administration data that shows oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf (which basically means the Gulf of Mexico) has increased by more than a third between 2008 and 2010.
EIA Administrator Richard Newell says it takes several years for any major federal policy action -- such as issuing leases -- to affect domestic oil production.
“Even if one has development drilling going on, there is about a one- to three-year lag between drilling and production that one will see,” Newell said during a break in a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Thursday. “If you’re on a longer term -- for example, new leases being issued in an area -- you can be on a several-year time frame before you can see a relationship between new leases and production. So there are significant lags.”
While Bush was in office from 2001 to 2009, the oil and gas industry saw many new leases and other expanded drilling opportunities. In March 2010, Obama announced plans to expand offshore drilling, but he retreated in the aftermath of the BP oil spill.
According to EIA’s short-term 2011 outlook, released last week, oil production was significantly higher in 2009 than in the years prior. Obama may have been in office for most of that year, but the oil production numbers are due to action taken before he became president. In 2010, most if not all of the production increase recorded is likely due to action that predates Obama, since Obama didn’t take any major action expanding offshore drilling his first year in office....."
http://nationaljournal.com/da...
Hanlon's Razor states that one should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.co...
"Creating jobs -- and eliminating them
THE NATION Obama's advisory team includes CEOs who have cut workers while profits soar.
October 10, 2011|Alana Semuels
In another public demonstration of concern about the struggling economy, President Obama will meet in Pittsburgh on Tuesday with the business and labor leaders he has chosen to counsel him on job creation.
But many of the chief executives have cut American jobs and adopted tactics that weaken organized labor -- even as their businesses post record profits.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday, October 12, 2011 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 4 News Desk 2 inches; 74 words Type of Material: Correction
Obama's jobs council: An article in the Oct. 10 Section A about job cuts by executives on President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness said that Boe...
Hanlon's Razor states that one should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.co...
"Creating jobs -- and eliminating them
THE NATION Obama's advisory team includes CEOs who have cut workers while profits soar.
October 10, 2011|Alana Semuels
In another public demonstration of concern about the struggling economy, President Obama will meet in Pittsburgh on Tuesday with the business and labor leaders he has chosen to counsel him on job creation.
But many of the chief executives have cut American jobs and adopted tactics that weaken organized labor -- even as their businesses post record profits.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday, October 12, 2011 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 4 News Desk 2 inches; 74 words Type of Material: Correction
Obama's jobs council: An article in the Oct. 10 Section A about job cuts by executives on President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness said that Boeing Co. was cutting jobs in California, Alabama and Kansas while adding jobs elsewhere. Nationwide, Boeing employment has increased by over 8,850 this year, according to the company. The story also said that Boeing profits in the second quarter were $941 billion. The correct figure is $941 million.
The executives are members of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which Obama created in January by appointing 26 leaders of companies including American Express, Comcast and Intel. (A 27th member was added in June.)
When he created the council, which also includes two labor leaders, a biologist and an economist, Obama said its members would assist him to "do everything we can to spur hiring and ensure our nation can compete with anybody on the planet.".....
"....Just days before the president appointed Kenneth I. Chenault, chairman and chief executive of American Express, to the council, the company announced a massive restructuring that closed a facility in North Carolina and eliminated 550 jobs, or about 1% of the company's workforce. At the same time, American Express announced it had made $1.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010, up 48% from the same period the previous year.
Xerox, whose chief executive, Ursula Burns, sits on the board, has cut 4,500 jobs in the first six months of 2011.
Jim McNerney, chief executive of Boeing, shrank the company's California operations because of the end of the space shuttle program and defense cutbacks. In January, Boeing said it was cutting 1,100 U.S. jobs, including 900 in Long Beach, and has since announced further cuts in Alabama and Kansas, while adding jobs elsewhere. At the same time, Boeing reported that profits rose 20%, to $941 billion in the second quarter of 2011.
Some companies have been cutting jobs for years. Eastman Kodak, whose chief executive, Antonio M. Perez, is a member of the council, has completed a number of layoffs at its Rochester, N.Y., manufacturing facilities. Between 2004 and 2011, Kodak's Rochester workforce shrank by 9,200 to 7,100.
A handful of companies with leaders who serve on the council have received government funding for research and job creation projects under the Obama administration.
General Electric, for example, received $210 million in stimulus funds, making it one of five companies on the council that received a combined $610 million from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to data posted on Recovery.gov, the government website website that tracks stimulus dollars.
Some economists say the records of these businesses indicate that the U.S. can no longer look to corporations to boost job growth.
"Nobody should expect this group to come up with innovative ways of investing in the American workforce and generating not only more jobs but higher wages," said Robert Reich, who was Labor secretary during the Clinton administration. "That's just not what these big companies do."
The White House says members of the council serve as independent advisors. The council meets with the president every quarter and presents him with job creation proposals that have included decreasing regulation for small businesses and increasing foreign investment in U.S. companies.
Regardless of their track records, the council members "have offered a wide range of recommendations to the president," White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said. "While decisions about which policies to pursue are ultimately the president's alone, he values the wide array of advice and input he gets."
Some council members run companies that have added jobs. Intel plans to hire 4,000 people this year, and is building plants in Oregon and Arizona. The railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe added 4,500 employees this year.
The numbers are not the only measurement under dispute. Labor advocates say many of the council members have tried to quell organizing drives and force concessions in negotiations while reaping profits.
"They call it the jobs and competitiveness committee, but when they mean by competitiveness is massive concessions being imposed on working people," said Chris Townsend, political action director of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, which represents 3,500 General Electric workers.
Townsend says General Electric has closed 31 U.S. locations and cut 22,000 jobs in the last four years. It has cut wages of nonunion workers and, in the most recent union contract, required employees to pay higher deductibles for health insurance and eradicated pensions for new employees.
"We think it speaks of incredibly poor judgment on the part of the White House to select the members of the panel that they've selected and try to describe it somehow as a job creation panel," he said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2...
Congressman's son lobbied for failing solar panel company
How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.
The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain...."
Sorry, I don't trust govt like you do! You can take the numbers you posted from any LIBERAL web site you wish and they will ALL agree with what they have taught you!
FACTS:
New oil production on FEDERAL lands has seen a 78% reduction in future permits through the obama administration!
79% or NEW drilling has been done on PRIVATE lands, especially in the Natural Gas fields!
The NEW amounts of Oil that have been taken out of federally granted fields... ie. Gulf of Mexico, are ONLY from the Permits granted by Bush and Clinton administration, with the exception of ONE!
Won't even TOUCH global warming OTHER than to say.... Why would your "hero" Al Gore buy a $8 million mansion on the California coastline that will be under 4 feet of water in five years, should his Ice Melt theory be true?
Tell you what, IF the World was so convinced that obama is such a "PRO OIL" person and responsible for ALL the wells YOU and your LIBERAL web sites say he is responsible for........ WHY is oil still over $100 per barrel? Before this new push on Natural Gas, the price per MBTU's was close to $14! Since we opened up individual...
&
Sorry, I don't trust govt like you do! You can take the numbers you posted from any LIBERAL web site you wish and they will ALL agree with what they have taught you!
FACTS:
New oil production on FEDERAL lands has seen a 78% reduction in future permits through the obama administration!
79% or NEW drilling has been done on PRIVATE lands, especially in the Natural Gas fields!
The NEW amounts of Oil that have been taken out of federally granted fields... ie. Gulf of Mexico, are ONLY from the Permits granted by Bush and Clinton administration, with the exception of ONE!
Won't even TOUCH global warming OTHER than to say.... Why would your "hero" Al Gore buy a $8 million mansion on the California coastline that will be under 4 feet of water in five years, should his Ice Melt theory be true?
Tell you what, IF the World was so convinced that obama is such a "PRO OIL" person and responsible for ALL the wells YOU and your LIBERAL web sites say he is responsible for........ WHY is oil still over $100 per barrel? Before this new push on Natural Gas, the price per MBTU's was close to $14! Since we opened up individual drilling, that price has come DOWN to under $2!
obama is an absolute hater of any type of Fossil Fuel and IF you don't know that, you smokin dope! Violating the agreement on the Keystone Pipeline only showed the World he is not serious about reducing dependence on Middle East oil. His closing down THREE huge refineries on the East Coast while guaranteeing BILLIONS to Columbia and drilling in Brazil shows everyone he despises American Oil Companies!
You wish to give me information different than what I've just told you, don't give it to me from some LIBERAL Green web site! Find it from the people who report to the Federal Govt their findings..... The Oil & Gas companies who are required to report by law!
have a nice day(;
So which of the poor people paid you best? and the top 1% pays 40% of all taxes the top 55 or so pays 76% of all taxes and the bottom 50% of us pay no Federal taxes, in your world when do you treat people "equally"?
**romneycare /obamacare..Look them up, they are virtually the same. Obama wants for-profit insurers to add more than 25 million new customers. Romney basically signed on to the idea first.
**Romney has an economic plan alright, check out his 10point economic recovery plan--It is full of identical plans that the Obama administration is trying:
**Romney recently called Obama's war tactics WEAK! Obama upped troop levels in Afghanistan by 51,000. Romney would only send more? Obama ok'd more drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen in 1 year than Bush did during his term as president. so i take it Romney would use more strikes while simultaneously repealing Obama's "extended hand/open fist" diplomacy? so they are both war mongers!
To avoid further deterioration of our constitution and rights, to get Big Gov knocked down a few levels, needless and unecessary wars avoided, Fed corruption will be faced, Healthcare will be between our doctor and ourselves..nomore gov input on what is best for your treatment plan (thats the doctors job) , the economy can begin healing, and our freedom and Liberties will be protected.~IM voting Ron Paul ~
I don't think so.
NOBAMA 2012