The daily power grab is just breathtaking… As the gullible media and citizens whine about AIG and bonuses, the behind the scenes fallout of Obama’nomics is reaching unbelievable heights.
These include a proposed budget being short over a trillion A spending plan Obama appears unwilling to abandon.
Then there’s the first time that the UN and Euro nations have decided to officially recommend dumping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency…. a position they think is necessary with the spending and borrowed debt in the US future.
There’s the cap and trade bit, where Obama’s estimates of the costs to the gullible US voter is only a third of reality. The downpayment on healthcare reform is less than half of what it needs to be… and even that figure isn’t accurate.
Meanwhile Congress and Obama kick out laws like the Octomom kicks out babies…. each one a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to fix what they broke. For example the insidious 90% tax on bonuses for any recipient employed by a company that took over $5 bil in bail out monies. This, of course, includes the banks who didn’t want the cash, but were strong armed into it by the Obama admin economic thugs.
Not enough? There’s the Obama proposed “resolution authority” giving the Treasury Sec’y the power to seize other financial institutions if he/she thinks they are a threat to the US economy.
And to make sure he can shovel all this crap, and more, down the US taxpayer throats, he’s prepared to make vast use of the budget reconciliation process” that cuts out bipartisan input, and only requires 51 Senate votes to pass. This gives Obama a cushion of eight Democrat renegades, and still enjoy passage.
The O’faithful, determined to believe that Obama still governs “from the center”, don’t seem to be digesting all the events very quickly. So let’s pile on one more power grab… the latest and greatest chapter from the rapidly expanding Obama version of Mein Kopf comes from Steven Labaton at the New York Times today… Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay.
Oh, but the O’faithful will say… if we are going to take over ownership… (but of course we’re told we aren’t “nationalizing” anything) … of institutions, we *should* control their pay. Afterall, any bank exec now has a cap of half mil if they took bailout cash.
But wait… this isn’t about bailed out companies. This is about any bank or financial institution. You might want to say that Obama supports not only minimal wages, but maximum wages. And the proposal can also be applied broadly to *all* publicly traded enterprises.
whoa…..
The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.
Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.
~~~One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Think this can be stopped in Congress? Think again… in fact, think back to CRA regulations rewritten by Clinton Treasury Sec’y Robert Rubin – aka master of the Citigroup demise. All was accomplished behind closed doors, in the midnight hours of the last days of Democrat majority in Congress. It was done specifically thru “regulations” in order to eliminate any opportunity for the incoming Republican majority to kill it via legislation.
Obama will be seizing this authority by regulation changes, *not* legislation. Congress? Why does a fuehrer need Congress when he has a Treasury Secretary czar?
A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large troubled companies not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds.
That proposal would, for instance, make it easier for the government to cancel bonus contracts like those given to executives at the American International Group, which have stoked a political furor. Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board.
~~~Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Financial Services Committee, said he believed giving the government new authority to take over troubled companies could be adopted by the House relatively quickly, particularly after the furor over the A.I.G. bonuses.
“This would give the government the same powers that you would get as if the company were in bankruptcy,” Mr. Frank said in an interview shortly after meeting with Mr. Geithner on the plan.
We already have a bankruptcy system… not good enough? Hang no. That is dependent upon the company making it’s financial decisions. This creates a separate system that has the government deciding FOR the company to declare bankruptcy … then stepping in as the trustees with the resolution authority.
If this continues unchecked, we may not be able to recognize America in the span of but a few years.
WMD!
When you got Obama, what else do you need?
Reading all this he said no he said no he said crap is like listening to my uncles explain that the South had not really lost the War Between The States and they were holding on to their Confederate money and ….
Which all so yesterday.
We have a current crisis on our hands (in the sense that somebody with an untreatable and terminal cancer “haqs a crisis on their hands”).
I’m out,
What part of “moved out of the country prior to our entry” did you not get, Larry?
I’m sorry, Larry… tell me again who’s borrowing all this money to pay for Obama’s plan? Especially in the wake of Hillary’s recent visit, begging for China loans?
Georges Sada… one of Obama’s top AF commanders.. is a “conspiracist”???? And “got fat”??
Obviously, Larry, you don’t own, nor read his book. He didn’t even want to write the dang thing. But let’s just throw out the inside voice because it doesn’t fit with what you want to believe… despite the obvious traffic on record prior to our military entry.
duh
Might I also suggest Larry W read the book by Mahdi Obeidi as well as the massive archives assembled on this very site by Scott and others.
After you’ve read all that perhaps you will cease beclowning yourself by trying to convince the rest of us regarding your alternate reality.
Are you saying we can drill enough of our own oil resources to be energy independent?? How many years are you speaking of???
With all due respect, do you think we have an infinite source? We have to look to the future and make solutions, and yeah, all of the above works for me, but if the #1 resource you feel is “stable” coming from the middle east and Venezuela??? Some believe we have used 1/2 of all of the oil deposits, lets even say they are wrong, and we have only used 1/4 or 1/3 of them, we are using these “stable” resources at an unsustainable rate. So do we have the right to use all the oil today and not leave any for the future… and run up the trade deficit shipping our dollars for oil? We need a new widget and one that does not rely on “stable” oil.
President George W Bush had every motivation in the world to tell the American people and tell the world that Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have WMD. Among other things, the rest of the world — including the Iraqis themselves — felt that the USA was really fighting a war to control the world’s oil spigot. This greatly eroded the support for the war effort, which directly harmed the safety of our troops.
Whatever massive archives have been assembled here and whatever books have been written by people motivated to write such books and give such lectures — none of it was enough to convince the Commander in Chief who, on four different occasions, said that his administration had been misled into believing that Saddam had WMD on account of — the President’s own words — “bad intelligence.”
Sorry — no disrespect to Scott, but I do believe the President and Commander in Chief on this issue, and not his loyal band of internet apologists. And it’s absolutely nuts/crazy to believe that the Syrians would go along with this. They saw what was going to happen to Iraq. They knew that they’d be next, were they to be the guardians of the (ultimately imaginary) WMD. The whole thing is conspiracy theory nuts, aided and abetted by people with every motivation to exaggerate, embellish, and lie. I’m not talking about bloggers here; I’m rather referring to the so-called inside Iraqi sources.
The day that George W Bush tells the world that Saddam really did have WMD after all is the day I’ll seriously consider this to be even a remote possibility. But, even in his exit interview, the outgoing President affirmed that the fanciful WMD were an illusion created by bad intelligence.
I share my “alternate reality” with the 43rd President of the United States. You guys share your alternate reality with much less credible sources.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
With all due respect, blast… just how much do you know about peak oil??
Blast:
Oil comes form the Earths Magma and there’s plenty of it. What were experiencing is artificial barriers placed by government to prevent a secure flow of oil.
About Alternative energies. I construct and install hydrogen generators on autos to improve mileage. it’s a good supplement but NOT a replacement to oil. Maybe I can make my Suburban run on straight hydrogen but the government won’t like that because they miss out collecting their tax money from gas because I’ll be using less of it.
Wind energy when at it’s peak, works about 40% percent of the time and takes up massive amounts of acreage verses a single coal plant uses 15 acres. On top of that, ice builds up on the blades and flings off becoming a deadly projectile and dices up birds who fly into them.
Ethanol was a loser from the beginning. If it weren’t for farmings wanting to secure their crop(which I understand because it’s tuff) Politicians wouldn’t subsidize a failure of an alternative fuel that cost 50% more to make then gasoline.
Hybrid technology requires batteries that use nickle mined in Canada and has cost mores more to manufacture then a regular gas vehicle. The nonce the battery wears down and can’t keep a charge you will fork out $10,000 for a new one.
These are some examples exposing the downside to the above utopia dream of alternative energies proposed and being forced into society before the free market perfects them. If one or all should be a viable solution then the free market will welcome them in to ur main stream via our wallets.
When mandated by government then the solution is a failure before production begins.
Mata,
I don’t believe that cap-and-trade is really pushed that far back, either, precisely because the administration has no other way (other than funny money) to pay for the dem’s wish list (porkulus).
The whole thing is pathetic, and it kills me to see that otherwise intelligent people (like Larry W; I’m not so sure about blast!) have yet to see through Obama. He’s just like his campaign symbol: emplty inside.
So, I’ll keep being my “bad self”, as long as YOU don’t change!
Jeff V
I see you are using buzz words “peak oil”, I spoke about some say we have used 1/2 the resource and I even allowed for lesser amounts. I know one thing for sure the amount of oil we have is finite, that means it will run out or become impossible to extract from the ground. Also, when we speak of these supplies… we must be thinking about our economic security since much of the world’s oil resources are in places that are unstable and unfriendly. So coupling those two arguments is enough for me to know long term oil is not a solution. And also, I did not make any environmental arguments many make… it is dollars and long term security I am speaking of.
Sorry, I don’t buy the abiogenic theory formation of oil, and neither do the majority of geologists. Oil was formed from organic matter.
First, the oil business is not a free market enterprise as evidenced in how prices escalated and the fact that the cost of securing the supply routes (and the national security implications) are not factored in. That whole concern about the dollar being at risk for no longer being the international trade denominated is centered on oil. We have played the shell game long enough with tyrants and unfriendly nations all in order to secure more oil… that we need and are addicted to. That addiction must be broken. Even President Bush said we are addicted to foreign oil… and we are not going to get new supplies from the “Earths Magma” anytime soon.
Hard Right said:
“They are trying to protect him by making Geithner the scapegoat.”
Which dovetails with. . .
On Greta or Hannity tonight (can’t remember which), Dick Morris said that he believes that Obama does not want his TARP/TALF plans to work so that he will have the excuse he needs to fully takeover the banking system.
This is also supported by the Dems continued persecution of all things capitalist.
They expressly do not want private sector support so that he will have the impetus to avert the next so-called crisis by assuming the reigns of these financial institutions.
They are already talking about dictating executive pay for more than just bailed-out businesses.
What a bunch of mouth-breathing fascists.
Blast:
Doesn’t matter if “majority” of geologist think. This isn’t a pie eating contest or a consensus of the “flavor of the month” science. Most, if all buffalo run off the cliff. But answer this, how do prehistoric animals and vegetation just somehow pile themselves together and form a pool of oil?
The US has more then enough oil supply to sustain ourselves for at least hundreds of years. We don’t tap it because of artificial barriers placed by government and environmentalist in the form of regulation, they are the culprits.
“buzz words”??? blast, really now. The term peak oil is what you base your condensed, and erroneous conclusions of “running out” of oil. Peak oil – also referred to as Hubbert Peak Theory… is the curve used when people want to talk about when the world will no longer have oil.
What you think is a political “buzz word” is actually the method they are using to try and gauge the world’s oil supply. This is why I asked you, exactly what do you know about peak oil? The method of measurement, it’s flaws, what it includes and what it doesn’t include?
This isn’t based on the actual supply of oil the earth has to offer. It’s based on the existing individual wells and their outputs. Wells generally increase in output in the earlier period, then start declining. Altho there is even some dispute about that since individual countries have to report their estimates… and many make it seem to be declining to keep it’s value up higher in price.
This does not mean that the world is running out of oil: it means that we are running out of the cheap pumpable oil with the *existing* fields. This is based on “Proven reserves” and not EUR (Estimated Ultimately Recoverable) oil. Nor does it include other alternative sources like oil shale, oil sands, tar sands, bitumen, heavy and extra heavy oil, deep water oil, polar oil and natural gas condensates.
As Radford University points out, using current proven reserves is *not* a measure of future supply. There is no dearth of oil in the earth. The trick is what is easy to get at for the cheapest costs, and what has been discovered. Nor should unconventional oil sources (i.e. the shale tar sands, etc) be excluded from the mix. From their conclusions here.
Radford also has a page dedicated to uninformed journalists, too uneducated on the subject to question the world’s oil supplies.
Additionally, the costs of extracting oil have remained stable for decades with little increase. In fact, it’s now the converse – technology has actually reduced the drilling costs and environmental impacts. Exxon-Mobil’s fast drill tecnology can reduce the production drilling time for oil and gas wells by 35%.
Go to E&P Mag to check their various news categories and you’ll find countries are actively involved in E&P world wide, with discoveries of fields daily. All countries *except* the US, of course.
As I pointed out in a comment in June of last year, there is a vast shortage of deep water drilling rigs. After the discovery of the western hemisphere’s largest reserve in decades, Petrobras had to order $30 Billion of equipment… 40 ships and deep submersible rigs. All that equipment won’t get to them until 2017.
As Aye and I (tho many think Aye and I are the same person… LOL) try to tell you, the earth isn’t running out of oil. Getting the EUR’s has been politically blocked for personal big money alternative energy ventures. Remember, they (government AND the alternative energy suppliers) will make much more money than the oil tycoons off the American public. Talk about “big bad business”…. instead of “big oil”, you’ll be able to whine about “big alternative energy” corporations instead.
The author of the report you refer to is not “Radford University” speaking, but Bill Kovaik a journalist and teacher at that school.
There is no doubt that their is a finite not unlimited supply of oil (shale or sands too). We consume in the USA a majority of our oil from foreign sources. That means we give them our dollars at an unsustainable rate, while we gluttonously consume all of this limited resource. We use 7.5 Billion barrels of oil a year and 66% of that is FOREIGN oil.
When we consume a barrel of oil, it does not replenish itself naturally. It is gone forever. There may be much oil, but not unlimited supplies and much of our money is going to enrich people who are not friends of the USA. If Iraq or AQ blocked the The Strait of Hormuz or some other disruptions in our major supplies, our economy would be even more crippled. If we are to remain a great power, we need to have energy security.
blast, there is no getting thru to you on this. And I’m not going to waste my time arguing that the earth is in a constant state of creating oil reserves. You choose to buy into the peak oil theory, and refuse to accept that there is more oil in other parts of the world, including alternative options such as shale, etal, that are not included in the environmental lobbyists agenda. So be it.
Your opinion is your opinion. But it is not based on fact and logic, but emotion.
@MataHarley:
Interesting write up, we could be energy independent rather quickly if not for the slugs that are standing in the way.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/an_end_to_dependence_on_middle.html
My opinion is based upon things I have learned, and is backed up by a majority of geologists and oil businesses. I have not made an environmental argument, but a resource and economic/security argument. You bet there I have some emotional feelings about dealing with the Middle East for oil. If not for our money they would be in tents and riding camels.
I realize like “Global Warming” and “Intelligent Design” there are people that have opinions on both sides, and yes, I disagree with you, however there in much logic and fact in the belief I hold on the finite amount of oil. I also have indicated the sustainably of use of oil is more that its intrinsic amounts, but the economic and security aspects of the lack of reserves here at home. It Oil was so abundant and replenishing, why the heck are we importing so much of it? Oh, yeah, you will say because of Anwar, or off shore drilling we are in this deficit. Even with use of those resources we still would be without enough supply.
“Backed up by a majority”?? Really now, blast. I’d love to see how you came to the conclusion that the “majority” of expects say the earth does not continue to create oil reserves. Again you confuse current extraction ability with the amount of oil possible from reserve fields, and alternative oil sources.
And that *is* a resourse and economic/security argument. Were we allowed to do E&P elsewhere in the world, we could most certainly continue to have a plentiful supply of oil. That would allow technology to advance for alternative supplements without being up against the gun.
Yes, blast. Why *aren’t* we allowed to use the Canadian sources, the Gulf and Alaska sources, the shale oil we have availble. And while we’re at it, why can’t we use the US coal sources? There is such a thing as clean coal, ya know. Then of course, there’s gas fields.
Problem is nanny legislation and enviro lobbyists thwart every effort to advance conventional AND alternative sources. From wind to solar farms, the enviros are right up front, protecting turtles and refusing to allow the transmission grid to pass thru natural land and parks. Then there’s Britain and Brown, who’ve lost their alternative energy investors. because they are in such deplorable economic condition. Or perhaps it’s British regulations. Either way, they are happy to pull out of that country, despite Brown’s personal agenda… which closely mirror’s Obama’s, BTW.
You are deliberately limiting yourself in what you see as oil sources when you bandy about only Anwar or the Gulf. Unfortunately, it seems to be based in environmental emotion instead of logcial concern about our national security. Otherwise you’d be an “all of the above” and “not in the Middle East” kind of guy.
I am fine with them drilling in Anwar, off the coasts or wherever. Last time I checked, Canada was a foreign country so getting supplies from them, although less security damaging than the middle east etc, is still exporting dollars. That is why the sacred cow of “reserve currency” is in doubt as well.
sniff sniff… do I detect the scent of isolationism and protectionism in the air?
blast, blast. Why doth though skip over the US resources so lightly? i.e. coal, shale, Alaskan reserves and off shore? and if we are to export cash for supplemental, is it preferable to get that from a neighbor and ally.
And no… that’s not *why* the sacred cow of reserve currency is in doubt.
We are importing 60+% of our oil Mata, we are not going to make that up with a few more holes in the ground… we need a real solution and long term condition. Drill Drill Drill…. but eventually all of those resources will be depleted… and that eventuality will be sooner not later.
Yes, the reserve currency is connected to deficits (yep including Pres Obama’s budget) and TRADE deficits where we export HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS each year.
If you are accusing me of skipping over US resources lightly, I would say to look at how easy you allow our country to be so dependent on Foreign sources of oil… and you know much of that comes from unfriendly places.
And yeah, I am protectionist if that means putting Americans FIRST!
Whoa there, bubba. Them’s fightin’ words. It is not *me* that increased our oil dependency to over 60%. You can thank your bozo Congressmen and women for decades on that. In fact, you can still email your thanks to them since most those career politicians are still there, living off of our dime. It was Congress who refused additional E&P for decades. It was Congress who refused to build additional refineries for decades. It was Congress who thwarts alternative energies from being affordable. Put your blame where it belongs.. and that’s not me.. or this is my last communication with you personally on *any* subject.
A “few more holes”?? Depleted? You can’t get past Anwar and the Gulf into other possibilities. sigh… still stubbornly stuck on stupid, eh?
We, as the old saying goes, now we know *what* you are… now it’s just negotiating the price. And I guess, for you, the price is to raise the price of energy on the rest of us, potentially bankrupting businesses and citizens. For this is what you are doing by ignoring the other possibilities merely so you can feel good.
Done with you on this discussion, blast. You don’t demonstrate anything but a mantra of nonsensical talking points not based in reality or fact. Don’t have time for this.
Or, as O’Reilly likes to say… “I’ll give you the last word”. Just be sure you remove your boot from your mouth before inserting the other one.
My comment was not meant to personally indict you, as you don’t control policy or run oil companies. It was a poor choice of words. Sorry if you felt insulted.
Gracious apology accepted, blast
Pingback: Democrat = Socialist