oldsailor35 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Whereas Obama seemed to me to be just plain critical of Romney with some, let me say rather "stretched" versions of Romney's ideas bordering on absolute lies ! To me, it appears that Obama has made quite a mess of the past 4 years and is only promising another 4 years of the same Too bad that 47% of the US population is not as perceptive as you are. Well they will when USA becomes another Greece ! 23 mill unemployed/underemployed 47 Million on food stamps 5.5 million homes in crisis/foreclosure $4,500 drop in household income $5.5 TRILLION of new debt $716 BILLION in medicare cuts $2.6 TRILLION for Obamacare $1.9 TRILLION in new taxes for Obamas budget 100% increase in GAS prices. FOUR MORE YEARS HE SAME...................omg ! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor35 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley was heavily criticised this morning after appearing to side with Barack Obama during last night's debate. http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz29YE4Gv3d Well so she should have been, she just let Obama 'butt' in where liked having 2 goes at the question, but Romney just behaved on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Romney smirks when he repeats the truism; "government doesn't create jobs." Not quite true. There are many ways gov't can contribute to new jobs being created. Shall I list them here? Not enough space or time. Besides the obvious proof of him being wrong, gov't on federal and state levels employ hundreds of thousands of people. Are those not jobs? There are also incentives, bail-outs of corps, R&D grants, education grants, defense contracts, .....the list could go on for pages. It's ironic for Romney, a man seeking to become president, continually hammers on how he will use government to create jobs - while on the other side of his mouth he says government can't create jobs. Which is it? The only way government can create private sector jobs is to declare war on a large scale. To suggest government increasing the size of the bureaucracy is creating jobs is somewhat silly. Where does the money come from to support that bureaucracy and it's continued increases? Oh, that's right, the private sector. Government is NOT a profit center...it is a cost center. The only way to create private sector jobs in today's economy is to remove recently issued HHS, EPA, NLRB, DOT, DOE, et al government regulations on private enterprise. Get rid of Obamacare and the various regulations, taxes and new policies being issued by the government and let free enterprise have it's head. My son owns a human resources company in the US that deals with many small businesses. He handles some 6,000 employees and he recently told me his healthcare costs have gone up nearly 30% since Obamacare was passed and that does not count the 18 or so new taxes that are scheduled to kick in on 1/1/13. In addition the various state and federal regulations being imposed are adding millions of dollars simply in government reporting procedures to both small and large businesses. What government should do is cut taxes, remove most of the government regulations issued during the past four years and get out of the way. Now I will hear the screams that cutting taxes will increase the debt, Yet when the government reduces taxes, stabilizes the economy by reducing regulatory requirements and Obamacare, private enterprise will react by spending the money they are sitting on to grow their business, which adds to the tax base. The private sector is frightened of another four years of an Obama Presidency, particularly when he will no longer have to face a reelection and, as he recently told Russia's Medvedev, will have the freedom to do as he wishes. The government is the problem, NOT the solution. Article on tax cut history: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From JFK To Bush, Treasury Swelled After Tax Cuts By PAUL SPERRY President Obama warned that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney's proposed income-tax cuts will "cost" the government revenue and repeat Bush policies that he says blew up the deficit. ...from the article... "It has never been done before," Vice President Joe Biden insisted in last week's debate with Romney running-mate Paul Ryan. "It's been done a couple of times, actually," Ryan shot back. The data bear out Ryan. In fact, the White House's own numbers put a big wrinkle in its argument. The historical tables in the back of the latest "Economic Report of the President" show that the Bush tax cuts generated more, not less, federal revenues — a phenomenon that also held true for Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Kennedy. Read More At: IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz29cGsRFdS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) ^ I also agree with that, and my own beliefs are more pragmatic and in line with Romney, even though I do think there should be efforts made at alternative energy and green initiatives. Here are a few Green Energy projects that have happened during the current administration. Our national debt can't stand many more of these so-called projects. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama's Green Economy Piles Up Yet Another Failure The Presidency: In Tuesday night's debate, jobs were a hot topic, just as they were when Barack Obama promised four years ago he'd create 5 million green energy jobs. Dare we say he's far off the pace? In April 2010, President Obama hailed a green energy company, A123 Systems Inc., as a success story, after granting it $249 million in taxpayer money in 2009 to build rechargeable batteries for electric cars. <snip for fair use> This is one of the clean energy businesses that Obama promised would "put thousands of people to work" and "spur growth in clean energy," which "means new jobs in cutting-edge industries all across America." Obama's nearly four years in office have been marked by a series of green energy companies gone bust. Think of Solyndra, Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy. And now add A123 to that list of failures. Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz29cLMzrHt Edited October 18, 2012 by Tywais Snipped to stay within fair use 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Obama is a one term president who will probably win a second term because his opponent is worse. Romney has the charisma of a cape buffalo. Re TV debates; I would like to see them abolished except when the white house is vacant ie at the end of a 2 term presidency. A serving president is at a clear disadvantage during these debates for reasons that will only become clear years afterwards. The mother of all parliaments conducts general elections in just 28 days. Why does America take a year & not even have a named apponent at the start? Just my 2p. Edited October 18, 2012 by evadgib 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Obama's nearly four years in office have been marked by a series of green energy companies gone bust. Think of Solyndra, Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy. And now add A123 to that list of failures. Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz29cLMzrHt All of which I bet cost the country a lot less than Enron. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Obama's nearly four years in office have been marked by a series of green energy companies gone bust. Think of Solyndra, Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy. And now add A123 to that list of failures. Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz29cLMzrHt All of which I bet cost the country a lot less than Enron. Uh...The Federal Government lost NO money on Enron. The government lost over $500 Million on Solyndra alone. Back atcha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Obama's nearly four years in office have been marked by a series of green energy companies gone bust. Think of Solyndra, Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy. And now add A123 to that list of failures. Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz29cLMzrHt All of which I bet cost the country a lot less than Enron. Uh...The Federal Government lost NO money on Enron. The government lost over $500 Million on Solyndra alone. Back atcha... I'm guessing a few state governments did, if you remember when Enron were essentially blackmailing them. But I won't dispute that the Federal government didn't. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that certain members of it made a good deal of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Romney has the charisma of a cape buffalo. We've had Charisma. What we need now is the water buffalo to pull us out of the Obama swamp. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Obama's nearly four years in office have been marked by a series of green energy companies gone bust. Think of Solyndra, Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy. And now add A123 to that list of failures. Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz29cLMzrHt All of which I bet cost the country a lot less than Enron. Uh...The Federal Government lost NO money on Enron. The government lost over $500 Million on Solyndra alone. Back atcha... I'm guessing a few state governments did, if you remember when Enron were essentially blackmailing them. But I won't dispute that the Federal government didn't. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that certain members of it made a good deal of money. I don't know anybody that is interested in your guesses. You might want to get back with us when you have some documented facts. Edited October 18, 2012 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Unfortunately I was travelling during the last debate, but I've seen snippets of it here and there. However, today I finally saw Romney's "Act of Terror" howler, which must have surely cost some debate prepper their job. Listening to one commentator on AFRTS last night (a Limbaugh-like show, but with a less squealy anchor), and he said when Romney "Stayed big" he won easily, but when he "went small" Obama was the winner. Which really illustrates that soundbites and style look great on Romney, but ask him about specifics - whether it be on details such as what Obama said in the Rose Garden, or how he's actually going to fund his tax cuts - and the silence or bluster is quite defining. Some were complaining that this debate didn't cover enough Foreign Policy. I wonder why they even bothered including it, when there is a whole debate left on the subject. As I said in another thread, while I was travelling the last few days, I read "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward. I wonder exactly what Governer Romney would do with Afghanistan and Pakistan, because Obama inherited a real mess there, and they knew at the time it would still be happening in 2012. Worth a read if you get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I don't know anybody that is interested in your guesses. You might want to get back with us when you have some documented facts. I'll just start with one state, California, shall I? Enron defrauded California out of billions during energy crisis By Jerry Isaacs 10 May 2002 Documents released Monday by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission revealed Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market. Internal memos from the now bankrupt company outline the various schemes Enron executives used to defraud officials running the state’s power grid, manipulate energy supplies and literally loot the state treasury of billions of dollars. Throughout this period Enron enjoyed the closest political ties with the Bush White House, which rejected appeals from California officials for federal intervention and the imposition of price caps. Residents in the country’s largest state suffered through six days of rolling blackouts in early 2001 following a tenfold increase in energy prices. The price hikes caused the bankruptcy and near-collapse of the two large utilities, leading to the layoff of thousands of workers and the wiping out of many small investors. In addition, state officials imposed severe budget cuts due to a rise in energy costs from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000, and after laying out $6 billion to buy daily power and another $40 billion to secure long-term contracts and stabilize the state’s energy supply. I would imagine this is veering off topic, but I'm happy to continue this in another thread, or PM. It's shocking what the Republicans let Enron get away with, but no surprise considering Enron's contributions to the Republican cause. But I suppose that's the game in the US, isn't it? You pay for a president or a congressman, you expect your money's worth, right? Edited October 18, 2012 by Chicog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 We agree on all those things. I am all for alternative energy and green initiatives as long as we utilize oil, gas and coal until alternate energy is developed enough to be easily available and reasonably priced. I think if you look back at what Obama said in 2008, he believed higher gas prices would push people toward alternative energy, electric cars, etc. So he really has never had interest in lower gas prices - way to be on the side of the little guy, O! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 For me, one of the issues which jangled my bells was the drilling for oil issue, where Romney emphasized several times that he would allow easy access to any areas - to drillers. I forget his exact words, but it sounded like there were no off-limits areas, not national parks, not arctic regions, not offshore. Granted, many of those who think like I do (being v. careful about drilling) are already in the Obama camp. Yet, that one issue may be the decider for some waffling voters. Obama stressed, several times, his keen interest in getting much happening with alternative energy resources. Romney gave a nod to wind energy briefly, but also mentioned the importance of nuclear, which is a red flag issue for many. Whats wrong from becoming independent from oil imports from outside North America? Do tree huggers believe it is greener and cleaner when the oil comes from South America or the middle east? If he is pro nuclear it is just a sign that he is sane. Residents of Sacramento California voted, about 20 years ago, to close down Rancho Seco, a functioning nuclear power plant near there. Are you saying those hundreds of thousands of voters are not sane? Nuclear works most of the time. However, when it goes bad, it can go very bad. A whole city can be rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years, and the surrounding croplands and everything living within become off-limits to people for who-knows-how-long. What's the dollar cost of rendering a city uninhabitable? Certainly a higher amount than if something went wrong with a large solar array (blown over by winds, perhaps). What is the dollar cost for rendering the entire planet uninhabitable? Anyone who believes in Global Warming...er..Climate Change, should be pro-nuclear. Not saying you are a believer, just saying that if the concern about one energy source is that it can render a city uninhabitable, then it is worth looking at the dangers of the other energy sources as well. The only difference really is that nuclear is on a much smaller scale but it can happen immediately, while with oil, coal, etc the effects are seen over generations. People against the Keystone Pipeline because they are worried about the planet should keep in mind that all that oil will just be sold to China instead. People worried about the Keystone Pipeline because a few birds or whatever will have to find a new place to live should maybe go find a new place to live themselves and let the rest of the country try to get back on its feet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Town Hall Attendees Still Standing Patiently Waiting For Their Questions To Be Answered HEMPSTEAD, NY—More than 15 hours after the conclusion of the second presidential debate, sources confirmed members of the town-hall audience who asked questions last night are still standing in the now-empty hall at Hofstra University, note cards in hand, patiently waiting for the candidates to actually provide them with answers. http://www.theonion.com/articles/town-hall-attendees-still-standing-patiently-waiti,29960/?ref=auto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) The only difference really is that nuclear is on a much smaller scale but it can happen immediately, while with oil, coal, etc the effects are seen over generations. Nuclear is on a smaller scale but its effects can be seen FOR generations. I have no problem with it, but I think fusion is ultimately a better bet than fission. People against the Keystone Pipeline because they are worried about the planet should keep in mind that all that oil will just be sold to China instead. People worried about the Keystone Pipeline because a few birds or whatever will have to find a new place to live should maybe go find a new place to live themselves and let the rest of the country try to get back on its feet. I must admit, it must stick in the craw of a lot of Americans (and Europeans) that they are supposed to be picking up the bill for a cleaner world while the BRIC countries are basically doing what they like, and saying "Well you didn't care when it suited your purpose". It's pointless having any serious discussion about the human impact on climate change with half of the planet. Edited October 18, 2012 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Now I find this funny, although the point is probably more reflective of Fox News than it is ThaiVisa. Edited October 18, 2012 by Chicog 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Off-topic posts deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Now I find this funny, although the point is probably more reflective of Fox News than it is ThaiVisa. Funny, but not accurate on the Obama side. They blamed... ...the altitude, ...John Kerry (who he practiced against), ...being distracted an upcoming scandal over Benghazi, ...being distracted an upcoming scandal over fundraising from foreign sources, ...suffering 'shock & awe' from Romney's "lies", ...being too polite, ...spending Maher's $1 million on weed, ...not used to being challenged by anyone, ...Romney has had a year of debate practice, Obama none. ...distracted by his wedding anniversary and my personal favorite, ...not having a record that he can defend in the first place so what did you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) A poster mentioned they missed the debate on tv. No problem. Watch it any time you like: (Correction of some misinformation. No, I do NOT think Obama will win by 10 percentage points. I think he will win or lose the POPULAR vote by a margin of between three and negative one percent and win the election of course via the electoral college by about 25 electoral votes.) Edited October 18, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Whereas Obama seemed to me to be just plain critical of Romney with some, let me say rather "stretched" versions of Romney's ideas bordering on absolute lies ! To me, it appears that Obama has made quite a mess of the past 4 years and is only promising another 4 years of the same Too bad that 47% of the US population is not as perceptive as you are. Well they will when USA becomes another Greece ! 23 mill unemployed/underemployed 47 Million on food stamps 5.5 million homes in crisis/foreclosure $4,500 drop in household income $5.5 TRILLION of new debt $716 BILLION in medicare cuts $2.6 TRILLION for Obamacare $1.9 TRILLION in new taxes for Obamas budget 100% increase in GAS prices. FOUR MORE YEARS HE SAME...................omg ! I assume most of the above is from a Republican pro-forma data sheet. And that is fine. Democrats will have the same for their side of things. One question though.... (nb..I work in oil and gas. And mining. So I'm not some tree hugging hippy) Are people really that stupid to think that government actually has control over the global price of oil and gas? Another thing: I don't get the Republican goal of 'energy independence' for a couple of reasons: - to make supply meet demand you are going to have to jack up the prices much higher than they already are (which is fine if you want to do it, but it is counter-intuative to me) - Even if they managed to somehow meet domestic consumption from domestic sources - are the Republicans going to force oil companies not to price their product based on world market indexes? I mean, if they didn't (ie forced oil companies to somehow accept a lower ROI on their American investment vs offshore investments) the oil companies will simply stop investing in the US and piss off overseas anyway. Ergo, lower investment, supply sources dry up, prices go up even more. I just don't understand the slavish goal for 'energy independence'. The only way I can see it working is if the Republican's go all 'socialist' (really) and control the market with an iron fist. But then you'd end up with a moribund oil industry. I just don't get it. Someone hasn't thought through the logic. And it isn't me. Edited October 18, 2012 by samran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 One question though.... (nb..I work in oil and gas. And mining. So I'm not some tree hugging hippy) Are people really that stupid to think that government actually has control over the global price of oil and gas? I'm no expert on the subject but isn't speculation on supply a big factor in determining prices, and not just the physical available supply at the moment? Isn't that why anytime there is a perceived threat to the world oil supply the price increases even before anything happens? If speculation is a factor, then the prospect of getting more oil from more drilling (Alaska, continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico, etc), from the Keystone pipeline, more favorable regulations, would lower prices and these are all things the government controls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Speculation is important in oil prices rising, but less so in lowering oil prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Speculation is important in oil prices rising, but less so in lowering oil prices. Good point. Prices seem to rise way too easily and nearly impossible to bring back down. But gov't policies can still lead to a rise is supply. Well, that is if our own companies would stop turning around and reselling it to China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) But they need China to make stuff to sell in the US, so the Chinese can make money and lend it back to America so that Americans can buy more Chinese stuff. Edited October 18, 2012 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 A poster mentioned they missed the debate on tv. No problem. Watch it any time you like Unfortunately I've not had a chance, but thanks for the link, I shall probably watch it with Breakfast in bed at the weekend. (Full English of course!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiangmaikelly Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 A poster mentioned they missed the debate on tv. No problem. Watch it any time you like Unfortunately I've not had a chance, but thanks for the link, I shall probably watch it with Breakfast in bed at the weekend. (Full English of course!). It is actually more interesting to watch the Thai translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 One question though.... (nb..I work in oil and gas. And mining. So I'm not some tree hugging hippy) Are people really that stupid to think that government actually has control over the global price of oil and gas? I'm no expert on the subject but isn't speculation on supply a big factor in determining prices, and not just the physical available supply at the moment? Isn't that why anytime there is a perceived threat to the world oil supply the price increases even before anything happens? If speculation is a factor, then the prospect of getting more oil from more drilling (Alaska, continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico, etc), from the Keystone pipeline, more favorable regulations, would lower prices and these are all things the government controls. You can simplify the regulations all you want. It will still cost $80 upwards per barrel to access that supply (more in the frozen wastelands if siberian oil is anything to go by) as opposed to sub $20 in the middle east. So you can bring on all the oil you want, but it won't be cheap. And the world price is basically held around the cost of the marginal barrel of oil, the only way those new supplies which are 'freed' by the republicans are going to be economic are if the bowser price stays high, or goes higher. So as I said, I find that particular policy dumb and misleading. But people seem suckered in by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 One question though.... (nb..I work in oil and gas. And mining. So I'm not some tree hugging hippy) Are people really that stupid to think that government actually has control over the global price of oil and gas? I'm no expert on the subject but isn't speculation on supply a big factor in determining prices, and not just the physical available supply at the moment? Isn't that why anytime there is a perceived threat to the world oil supply the price increases even before anything happens? If speculation is a factor, then the prospect of getting more oil from more drilling (Alaska, continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico, etc), from the Keystone pipeline, more favorable regulations, would lower prices and these are all things the government controls. You can simplify the regulations all you want. It will still cost $80 upwards per barrel to access that supply (more in the frozen wastelands if siberian oil is anything to go by) as opposed to sub $20 in the middle east. So you can bring on all the oil you want, but it won't be cheap. And the world price is basically held around the cost of the marginal barrel of oil, the only way those new supplies which are 'freed' by the republicans are going to be economic are if the bowser price stays high, or goes higher. So as I said, I find that particular policy dumb and misleading. But people seem suckered in by it. Are you content with OPEC setting the price of oil? Supply and demand has everything to do with the price of oil. High demand along with limited supply generally causes a hike in the price of oil. If the US becomes energy independent, that would conceivably remove the US demand from the world market, thereby causing a lowering of the price per barrel worldwide. Securing the oil from both the US and Canada would lower the transportation costs currently associated with Middle East oil as well. And just think how many jobs could be created by having a truly viable oil industry. So, what is wrong with my thinking here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Unfortunately I was travelling during the last debate, but I've seen snippets of it here and there. However, today I finally saw Romney's "Act of Terror" howler, which must have surely cost some debate prepper their job. The one who should be losing her job is Candy Crowley. She ended up having to walk back her huge gaffe and admit that Mitt Romney had his facts correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts