Obama a Democrat Screws the Military Again

Or they don't want it to come up because the answers would have embarrassing consequences for the Democrats.

It didn't matter if it was, Democrats or Republican, all of the questions were grandstanding for political points.

The people who should be answering questions from behind the Table are those same blowhard Senators.

Since Obama has taken over, on His watch, the DOW has fallen to:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The DOW stood at:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When He took office, on that day January 20, the DOW fell -332

When Obama's Stimulous passed, on Feb 20, the DOW fell -297.96

Feb 20, the DOW dumped another -100.28

Yes, this in now Obamas watch, and these numbers are from His Policies, and the Buck stops at his desk.

Obama and the Democrats have just on this own watch, increased the national debt by $2.75 Trillion Dollars, all of it voted for by only Democrats, except for three RINO.

24 days and the Obama administration has put the Tax Payers on the Hook for $2.75 Trillion Dollars, and they plan another additional Bill just like by the end of summer?

Yes, the Repubs spent money like drunken sailors, but now Obama and the Democrats are spending money like drunken democrat politicians.

Yes, and you want to only blame the Repubs, yeah, who is one dimensional, buy the end of summer, Obama and the boys will have the U.S. on the hook for over $6 trillion dollars, and where will we be then, were will our children be, grandchildren, great grandchildren.............Yes, what are your vaunted Democrats doing for the Children? BOHICA, Yes, as Reagan said the scarcest 10 words in the English language, I from the Government, and I am here to help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Buffalo Roam the numbers you want to tag Obama with as ususal are greatly exagerated. If you noticed today, the market was up 226 points. The markets are extremely volatile...given the nature of our current crisis.

As I have said before, Obama has screwed up with the bank plan and Geithner. It is a serious screw up and he needs to rectifiy it immediately. But I think we have to give the guy a chance. You and your Republicans never gave him a chance before you started jumping him.

There were plently of Republicans on the committee today who could have asked "embarassing questions" if they wanted...but they didn't. One senator tried desperately to get the chair to claim he wanted to nationalize the banks...which would have scared the markets and driven down the markets. But Bernake steadfastly refused to give into his unfounded assertions.

For almost 100 years the FDIC has been taking over insolivent banks and immediately reselling their assets to other banks. The good Republican senator was trying to get Bernake to say that this practice is a nationalization of the banking system. What a clown and more over what a traitor...putting party interests above national interests. It totally disgusts me!

By the way, I was a drunken sailor and I nor my compatriots ever spent money with such reckless abandon as did the Repbulicans and George II.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a good point and also note Buffalo cheery picked three down days. It would be more fair (To avoid some of the volatily effects) to take the entire period 19 Jan til 24 Feb decline under Obama and compare to the decline in same nummber of days under GWB near the end of 2008. I am too lazy to do that and do not know the results. If one computed the per day rate of decline for both that would be more fair as at least for GWB 2008's 365 days would not have much "volatility effect"

Anyone willing to do the work to get these more fair comparisons? However note that this is not a measure of how good the POTUS is - only an indication of what the stock investors think he will do for the market.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BillyT, the Market on Jan, 20, 2009, was at 7949, and it now stands at 7114, and what I was showing was that every time more of Obama and the Democrats plan passes in to law, the Markets react negatively.

It is now Obamas watch, and the 800 point drop is His to explain.

Now I am not happy about George and Bipartisan Bailout, supported by both Democrats and Repub, with votes bought by tons of pork and hog grease, but under Obama nothing has changed, the Bail out passed by the Democrats has so much lard in it on a hot day it would melt and slide in to the gutter.

But as of today, the Repub are finally getting the message from the people, and that is fiscal responsibility.

68% of the American public doesn't support this massive bailout to the Banks and Wall Street, and the reason is that the moneys don't reach main street.

For all the sound and fury from the Democrats what has really changed?

The majority of the money is still going to the Government Pork Projects, Banks, and Wall Street, and for the average Joe.....$13.00 a week, $52.00 a month, and we the average Joe, have seen our retirements cut by 50%, and every time Obama opens his mouth the Market drops another 100+ points.

The first problem is that:

The Government doesn't have the Money

The second problem is that:

The Government is going to turn on the printing press and print the money.

The Third problem is:

Excess money causes inflation, and then deflation.

The fourth problem is the Government it's self, both Democrats and Republicans:

They have forgotten the people, and the money in these bail outs isn't aimed where it will do the most good for them, most of it is still going to the Government for Government Pork Projects, that the average Joe is still going to have to pay for in the end.

And this morning the markets are falling again after the Messiah made His Sermon on the Hill.

 

Buffalo Roam, what you are ignoring is that under the George II administration a disasterous econcomic crisis occured. An economic event of the magnitude and scope of which we now face does not go away in days, weeks or months.

The effects of the Obama stimulus package have yet to be felt in the economy. The TAR prevented a full scale global financial melt down. But it was not the total solution. And has been mentioned on several occassions it is possible that the TAR will not cost the tax payer any funds. The tax payer may even profit from it.

All of the Republican discourse - fallacious attacks on Obama - is not helping restore confidence in the economy or the organs of our insitutions. And that is the key problem we currently face.

Obama and the Democrats are doing pretty much exactly what they should do to resolve the problem. Yes monetary supply will be increased out of necessity not neglect. What you fail to undestand is money supply is much more than a printing press. Money supply can be increased and decreased without the aid of a printing press. Now we need to increase money supply, but more improtantly we need in increase aggragate demand...spending.

Again many of your numbers are off. And as Billy T said, stock market volatility is not a good measure of Obama's performance. Obama not only has to combat the economy, he has to deal with folks like you intent on brining down the country in order to gain politcal power for their interest groups.

Already we have seen the ads from special interest groups on TV deriding Obama. I cannot wait (actually yes I can) before the healthcare interests start running their ads. He has a mess and a great challenge before him. I think we owe him our prayers and best wishes for success. We need to united as a people as if we were struck by a terrorist group, because indeed the threat we face is much greater than that we faced on 9/11.

 

What has changed? - 'Well, there are fewer, perhaps no, blatent "ear marks" like the bridge to no where, which Palim did not build, but just took the Federal Money.

I predicted, posted here* and explained why TARP would fail, before Congress even voted on Paulson's TARP. (Also in same thread starting post suggesed an alternative.) I.e. I too think much of the money sent to banks has been wasted. They only use it to improve their books by buying treasury bonds** with it or smaller banks, etc. not for making loans.

I am not sure what you refer to as "pork for wall street"*** or congressional district projects ("earmarks") but bet there are some, just much reduced from when GWB was POTUS.
----------------
* http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2025940&postcount=1

You said: "It is now Obamas watch, and the 800 point drop is His to explain."

I do not have hard numbers but think it fell at least 5 or 6 times more on GWB's watch. But again, that reflects investor opinions, not the merit of lack therof of the president. Few would argue that GWB was good for the USA. It is too early to judge Obama. Lets at least wait for the first 100 days to be over.

**Really a crazy cycle: Treasury issues bonds, send them to FED, which creates credits in the banks (in the treasury's name) then like any deposit, the banks with multiplier effect could make loans up to 10 times that amount, but they only buy treasury bonds instead (zero multiplier effect). Net is that money created by treasury returns to treasury and both FED and banks buying Treasury paper has interest rates very low so China et. al. will not buy more. - Much better for them to buy real assets like minerals, (oil included) farm land, companies, etc. especially now that commodity prices are lower than a year ago.

***Certainly the greatest "pork for Wall Street" was the reduction in Capital Gains and Dividend taxes. - That cost the taxpayers more than a trillion in lost taxes during GWB's eight years. I bet you can not name even 1% of that as Obama's "pork for Wall Street."

 

We have been struck by a terrorist group* for eight years - one that did 1000 times more damage to the US than knocking down two buildings and killing less than 3000 Americans.
----------
*The GWB, neocon, Saudi Royal family group that destroy the economy and had US importing more oil than ever before in its history.

Here is a one industry sample of what Obama inherited from GWB (Note Chrysler not even mentioned) See photos of unsold cars in lots around the world here: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.09/unsoldcars.html

 

Yeah, you are correct yet again Billy T.

 

BillyT why are we importing more oil than ever?

 

Good question, I think you need to ask those in power for the last decade...your Republicans.

 

Actually it is the Democrats who have fillibustered any and all attempts to open up drilling, and build new refineries.

Like maybe Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi blocks offshore drilling vote GOP wants
The Question. Pelosi blocking vote on offshore oil drilling: ... "even (Pelosi's ) own California neighbors oppose her efforts to block new drilling far off American coasts. ... 30 - if Democrats don't allow a vote on offshore drilling. ...

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/0... - 86k - Similar pages

On The Spot: Pelosi & US House Democrats Block US Offshore ....
Pelosi & US House Democrats Block US Offshore Drilling for Oil! McCain Calls for End to Prohibited US ... Spotsylvania County GOP Announces New Chairman ...

www.spotsygop.com/2008/06/pelosi-us-house-democr... - 28k - Similar pages


Democrats Still Aren't Serious About Drilling - WSJ.com
Sep 17, 2008 ... After a five-week paid vacation, Democrats are back in Washington and ... she knows her environmental allies will block new drilling from going forward. ... the bills Democrats support will not lead to oil production. ...

online.wsj.com/article/SB122161650517646313.html - 82k - Similar pages

Peoples Press Collective » Dems Block Iraq Oil Deals With US...
Dems Block Iraq Oil Deals With US… Block Drilling Off US Coast ... Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum. ...

www.peoplespresscollective.org/2008/09/dems-bloc... - 44k - Similar pages



Gateway Pundit: Despite Oil Crisis, Democrats <em>AGAIN</em>...
May 19, 2006 ... Despite Oil Crisis, Democrats AGAIN Block US Firms from Drilling! ... had stepped up work on 36 new oil wells in partnership with Chinese, ... ...the Democrats continue to block oil drilling and exploration by US firms! ...

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/despite-oil-c... - 78k - Similar pages


Why are the Democrats continuing to block oil drilling in AN...
Why are the Democrats continuing to block oil drilling in ANWR? ..... Fool.com/ energy · Drilling Equipment: New, Used, & Rental Units Available. ...

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080514085... - 101k - Similar pages


Yes, joe, ask the Democrats, starting with Reed and Pelosi.

 

Let me ask you this Buffalo, what happens if we drill as you suggested and add even ten percent to our production...which is in excess of the estimates? What prevents the oil cartel (OPEC)from lowering production by an equal amount?

 

Pot, kettle, black. James, over moderation is not required. Just you being a decent human being is.

 

Well what is Opec doing today? and we still have no way to counter any such cut back by Opec.

Prices are falling, and Opec is cutting production trying to force the price back up.

If Opec wants to cut back, we drill more.

But we have one major problem, we don't have the refinery capacity to take advantage of new drilling production.

So the new oil would have to go on the market, as a replacement for any cut backs which then would keep the supply high again holding the prices down.

Just as what has just happened, the supplies caught up to demand due to new oil found around the world, and production increases, and lowered demand because of higher prices, and prices went down.

To take full advantage of our own oil, the first thing we need to do is build 30 new refineries, with the newest technology available today.

That will reduce pollution, get more product per barrel, move them into safer weather zones, and stream line production.

Now, when have the Democrats ever supported any such move?

 

So the answer to my question then is nothing. The additional oil would not be sufficient to eliminate US foriegn oil dependency. If The United States increased production, OPEC would decrease production in order to maintain their desired global oil price.

Now let's assume another situation. Let's assume that magicly drilling in these places would totally eliminate the need for oil imports and we would have excess oil production and could be a net exporter of oil. How would that affect domestic oil prices?

 

No, if we went after our oil we could eliminate most if not all of our imports from overseas, there is enough oil on the North American Continent to supply us (meaning North America) for the next 150 years, by which time we should have alternative energy on line.

But one other thing we could do to cut our oil dependence would be Nuclear Power, one new Nuke Plant per State, and our power problems would mostly disappear, and any pollution from coal would disappear.

Well lets look at the Countries of Opec:

Venezuela Caracas $0.12 per gal.

Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91 per gal.

Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78 per gal.

Egypt Cairo $0.65 per gal.

Plus it would shift the do wonders for the Trade Deficit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you care to note, starting in 2002 when we started looking for oil on the Continent, we more than doubled our known reserves.

Things are slowing down a little because we don't have the ability to exploit those finds due to lack of refining capacity, so until that catches up, and under the Democrats that has a fat chance of happening, we are stuck sucking the Opec Tit.

 

That is simply false, please stop lying. There is enough oil in ANWR to supply the US for one year (assuming 2005 consumption rate). A 150 year supply isn't even a Republican talking point.

 

Ok, let me ask you this. Assume we can be energy independent...produce enough to meet all domestic needs. And assume I am an oil company producing in The United States.

The international or global price of oil is $60 per barrel. But the price in the US market only is $20 per barrel as you suggest. Why would I sell my oil in the US for $20/barrel when I can sell my production on the international markets for $60/barrel?

The answer is I would sell all my production for the higher price...the global price. The result would be less supply in the US and higher prices in the US. So eventually the US price will equal the global price which as previously discussed is controlled by OPEC.

So despite all of your rhetoric here nothing really changes by increasing domestic production, from a consumer point of view.

 

Now please provide proof on your assertion, you are the one repeating left wing doom and gloom propaganda.

Provide the complete survey of the ANWAR site.

And I wasn't just talking about ANWAR, there is a lot more oil around the Continent than what is in ANWAR.

 

Now were did I suggest $20.00 a barrel oil?

Yes, if that is what the market is, that is what it will be, but if the market tightens up like it did over the last 3 years, oil will again be at $150.00 a barrel.

That is what I am talking about, using our own oil to affect the market supply which determines the market price.

So if we sold the oil on the international market, that price on the international market would come down, and we would cut into our own trade deficit with those sales, still money in the pocket of the U.S.

It is all in the market, if the U.S. oil was being sold for $20 a barrel on the U.S. market it is under priced,, and the market couldn't support that price, also it would mean that the world market price is over inflated, and the markets aren't going to support that either, the only way that that oil could be sold only in the U.S., in that market, at that price would be because of Government interference, and if the Government insisted on a $20.00 a barrel cap, and the oil market in the U.S. would collapse.

Adequate Supplies no matter were there are sold affect market prices to the lowest price, the only way the price can rise is in a restricted supply and market, and that has been the major problem, government interference in supply, and market, we have choked off our oil from the market, squeezing supplies, allowing Opec to set the price by controlling the supply and market.

So we sit here with our finger up our bum, as Opec is now cutting supplies.

We import 56% of our crude oil, and almost 20% of our refined products.

The reason that the market price of crude is now down to $40.00 a barrel is because of the new fields now coming into production, and the fact that the price of Gas reached the point that people stopped driving.

So there was more crude on the market, and more gas in the reserves, so price came down, but guess what, the oil companies are still making their profits, they have to, or they go out of business.

If they go out of Business:

That means job losses from the drilling table, back to the rig builders, back to the suppliers, back to the steel manufatuers, a drop in supplies, and a rise in prices, and we are screwed again with $4+ a dollar gas.


It isn't out of the Goodness of their Hearts that Opec and the Oil Barrons let the price come down, it is because of market supplies that they came down, more oil that has to be sold, they still need a cash flow to operate, also it cost money to store crude oil which cuts into profits, so they have to move it.

A contango is normal for a non-perishable commodity which has a cost of carry. Such costs include warehousing fees and interest forgone on money tied up, less income from leasing out the commodity if possible (e.g. gold).

The contango should not exceed the cost of carry, because producers and consumers can compare the futures contract price against the spot price plus storage, and choose the better one.

The market is the equalizer.