5 Mar

Barack Obama’s oily lies [Reader Post]

                                       

Barack Obama and the truth are often at odds, and this is a wonderful example

This week he introduced a new prop to illustrate his point. As Obama spoke, a chart popped up on television screens behind him. The graph showed U.S. dependence on foreign oil falling since 2005 — from 60% of net imports to 45% in 2011.

The White House handed out copies to the crowd. Obama told them to take it home — “it makes for a great conversation piece at parties. Now, one reason our dependence on foreign oil is down is because of policies put in place by our administration and my predecessor’s administration. And whoever succeeds me will have to keep it up.”

Actually, Obama had nothing to do with driving it down. The recession did that.

And as far as dependency on foreign oil?

(charts courtesy of Tim Wallace)

There you have it. President Obama absolutely did not cut dependency on foreign oil. In fact, foreign oil dependency rose from roughly 37% to 40% under his administration. To be more precise, foreign petroleum usage in his administration went from 37% to a peak of 41% last year, currently at 39.9%.

The only way Obama can take credit for the decline in consumption caused by the recession, is to take credit for the recession itself.

And that would be reasonable.

With gas prices at record highs and with no “magic bullets” available, what is Obama’s course of action?

Make drilling more expensive!

It is good news that domestic production is increasing, but that is occurring in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them. They’ve slowed the approval of gas and oil exploration permits to a crawl, haven’t demonstrated that they will support fracking in the long term, still murmur about mandating CO2 emission rules through the EPA, and halted the Keystone Pipeline. The United States has not built a new oil refinery since 1976. There is an effort to build a new one in South Dakota, but Obama’s green allies have held up the process in court for years. It will take four years to build and the hope is that construction can begin by 2013.

At least Obama can take credit for getting our dependence on foreign oil moving in the right direction, right? No, actually, the reduction started in 2006: “U.S. dependence on imported oil has dramatically declined since peaking in 2005.”

So yesterday in New Hampshire, Obama’s plan to deal with high gas prices is to take away tax incentives for oil companies, tax provisions that permit them to deduct a portion of sales to cover capital investment, expense certain drilling and development costs, income tax credits for the costs of “qualified enhanced-oil-recovery” methods. In other words, all of these tax incentives make it easier and cheaper for oil companies to do their jobs – drill and refine oil. Obama wants to make activities like “drilling and development” more expensive… as a response to high gas prices.

This is madness.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Economy, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Obamanomics, Oil, Politics, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 5:04 am
| 1,097 views

27 Responses to Barack Obama’s oily lies [Reader Post]

  1. Westie says: 1

    Good charts, thanks.

    ReplyReply
  2. Aleric says: 2

    Facts are like Kryptonite to Liberals.

    ReplyReply
  3. MataHarley says: 3

    Let’s add another chart to drj’s above, for additional perspective. Below the US consumption chart from the early 1970s to 2011, as well as the prices per barrel (real and in $2010).

    But of course we would import less when consumption is down. The US consumption started falling in 2005 and has continued to go down, except for a brief period with the government injected “stimulus” in 2009. Ergo, consumption.. and as a result imports.. were also falling under Bush for the same reason – rising prices (but more slowly then) and reduced consumption.

    Consumption down/prices up are due to:

    1: global demand up while spare capacity is down

    2: not enough new E&P or production coming on line to handle anticipated global demand (especially non OPEC nations)

    3: tax policies (i.e. the UK’s 50% tax) on oil companies is deterring their exploitation of known fields, as well as heavy red bureaucratic tape, permit moratoriums, and environmental lawsuits, slowing the pathetically small US existing development

    4: debt/spending of the US affecting monetary policy and deliberately tanking the US dollar

    5: ME interruptions more likely than usual

    All of these factors – especially heightened when all are in high gear – make for the worst possible combination, resulting in skyrocketing prices. History has all of these factors influence in the past. Right now, it’s like the “perfect storm” combination of all of them in a very ugly reality.

    Obama is correct that imports are down. But that is not the “less dependence on foreign oil” I think the nation had in mind, nor the repercussions of that lessened dependence as reflected in prices per barrel.

    There is a solution that would reflect on oil prices pretty quickly, but as Obama promised… and I believe him… he does not want lower prices. This serves his preferred agenda of expensive alternative energy much better.

    ReplyReply
  4. joetote says: 4

    @Aleric: What facts? According to liberals. true facts are the lies told by anyone with views conflicting with their! LOL! As sad as this is, the MSM propaganda industry will ignore any fact that sheds a bad light on this out of control administration.

    ReplyReply
  5. Oil guy from Alberta says: 5

    People don’t understand how drilling techniques have improved. New innovations are coming on a yearly basis.
    Rock bits and rock bit runs are outstanding compared to 5 years ago. Measurement while drilling(MWD) technologies are becoming more fool proof and more precise. Rig equipment is more durable and more reliable. Rig crews are better trained and more safety conscious. Rig engineering and drilling programs are so much better. Continuous tubing, mud systems and pumps, top drives, etc. increase rate of penetration and reduce down time. Better BOPs, manifolds, flare stacks, etc. made drilling progress so much better. America can drill its way to self sufficiency and prosperity. There’s your challenge and Newt is the leader on this.

    ReplyReply
  6. Crimson says: 6

    “It is good news that domestic production is increasing, but that is occurring in spite of Obamaâ��s policies, not because of them.”

    So…. you’re saying what exactly?
    Domestic oil production declined dramatically under Bush. It has risen sharply under Obama. You’re aware that this hasn’t led to a decrease in domestic gas prices, but somehow Obama not allowing more production is the problem? Because more of what you know isn’t the solution…. is the solution?
    Yes, madness is the correct description for that.

    Raise your hand who is stupid enough to think that diamonds are really cheap in the slums of Capetown because they extract most of them from there and capitalism relating to global commodities doesn’t count because mining corporations are big on discounts for local markets and small on what’s profitable for them.

    If a US Oil company sold oil to the US at a discount rather than on the international exchanges the CEO would get fired for being fiscally irresponsible.

    ReplyReply
  7. Crimson says: 7

    “All of these factors â�� especially heightened when all are in high gear â�� make for the worst possible combination, resulting in skyrocketing prices. History has all of these factors influence in the past. Right now, it’s like the “perfect storm” combination of all of them in a very ugly reality.”

    Wouldn’t history tell you that this isn’t the worst possible scenario yet, and a perfect storm would also include an oil embargo in the ME?
    You know, if for instance you were putting sanctions on a country that controlled the Persion Gulf shipping routes and who specifically said this is how they would retaliate. Then did, in the news recently.

    Now let’s get back to complaining about how Obama needs to be tougher on Iran and support Bibi.

    ReplyReply
  8. MataHarley says: 8

    Crimson, indeed it could be worse. So your objection is that I didn’t allow for even more heinous factors? Well hey, if you want to stretch that, then even your observation about an oil embargo would pale compared to piling on with:

    1: all out nuke war, destruction of Middle East fields production
    2: the US dollar losing it’s reserve currency status, and yet another drop in the US credit rating
    3: a complete halt of permits and US domestic production
    4: energy terrorism on Canada’s Bakken fields
    5: China’s further decline on GDP growth
    6: an official reentry into recession, or worse, depression, of the Eurozone (the former which is highly likely)

    Hey, we don’t even have to stop there. How far would you like to go?

    The point is that there are so many negatives by the influencing factors happening at one time, that the skyrocketing price of oil is not unsurprising. What is surprising is a US POTUS unwillingness to do anything to curtail it, because it would interfere with his big MO on alternative energy, at the unsustainable expense of the US taxpayers.

    BTW, I’d take BeBe as POTUS over Obama any day of the week.

    ReplyReply
  9. Crimson says: 9

    “The point is that there are so many negatives by the influencing factors happening at one time, that the skyrocketing price of oil is not unsurprising.”

    I know. Mine was that it is surprising that I have to read both posts about the shocking price of gas and also how it would be a great idea to get tougher on Iran.

    ps. There’s lots of places to do your terrorism that aren’t the Canadian oil fields. Jihad doesn’t need to involve freezing your nuts off…. or any kind of strategic forethought as we’ve discovered.
    It’s been almost a decade since Bob the CIA agent published his book where he named the 4 different bits of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia you would need to hit in order to cripple the entire planet’s oil supply. Yeah, not so many strategically thinking Jihadi thinkers. I believe they went with underwear as their next target.

    ReplyReply
  10. Hard Right says: 10

    @Crimson:

    Ummmmm, wow you are dense and ignorant.

    Try learning about why the cost of gas has gone up and why domestic oil production has increased.
    I know liberals tend to be proudly ignorant of economics, but you can’t be that dumb. Then again, maybe you can.
    BTW, do you have ANY clue why diamonds are expensive despite being very common?

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 11

    LOL, Crimson. Too funny about the strategy challenged jihadis and their underwear targets… heh

    I understand that there’s other energy terrorist targets. Again, it’s not playing the specifics, one up game. But here’s the reality. Iran and the price per barrel… and by proxy the price at the pump.. are not distant cousins.

    Yes, Iran is a national security threat, being as it’s simply not wise to have the largest state sponsor of terror groups nuke armed. Combine that with such easy entry into the US, plus their airborne delivery to Israel, and it’s not a good scenario for any western nation’s national security.

    But that is also related to our own energy, and dependence upon oil from that region. As Newt likes to say, were we to develop our own self sufficient supplies, and supplement that from our close neighbors and allies (Canada and Mexico), we could turn to that region of the world and say “Frankly, we don’t care what you do”. Separate our national security and oil dependence, and we have less national interests in interfering in that region, and only need to keep a weather eye out on the horizon with HUMINT.

    While all events I mentioned above – our monetary policy, global spare capacity, demand, consumption, and ME upheaval – all play into the pricing, the majority of those can be circumvented with domestic production and a goal towards self sustainability. We have natural gas fields, a plethora of oil fields from shale to normal crude deposits, fracking is advanced, and Canada’s already pumping… just needs a pipeline transport system. Focusing on developing domestic sources not only provides for a friendly business growth environment with less energy costs, but also creates jobs and effectively bolsters the sagging economy, and increases revenue to appease that insatiable Congressional hunger for spending.

    Flood the market with accessible oil that can’t be ripped from our cold dead hands by the wacky Middle East, and prices will be coming down. And other nations who don’t want to be subservient to OPEC and volatile nations who live for violence, will be buying from North America as well. We used to be a very large oil exporter.

    This isn’t “pipeline” dreams, and as I pointed out in my post, Exploiting Obama’s Achilles Heel – it’s the economy stupid, the fastest and most do’able single change we can evoke for economics and national security is to fast track a change to our energy policy. History has proven over and over that the increased supply and spare capacity drops the prices every time… unless the crazies in the Middle East stick their foot in the transportation door. So eliminate the crazies, then sit back with popcorn in our warm, heated homes and watch them kill each other. It’s their national pasttime.

    And no… as the Alaskan Oil export ban proved, you cannot mandate the US domestic oil be only used for US purposes, or else you create a false glut and inhibit the national and healthy E&P of new sources. Thus why it was repealed. It would only be those that don’t learn from history that would dare to repeat such folly.

    ReplyReply
  12. Crimson says: 12

    @Hard Right:
    “Try learning about why the cost of gas has gone up and why domestic oil production has increased. I know liberals tend to be proudly ignorant of economics, but you can’t be that dumb. Then again, maybe you can.”

    And yet it’s not liberals who have unanimously agreed that increased production is the answer, to the problem you know it doesn’t solve. Were we not supposed to notice the 2 million calls for increased drilling and 0 explanations of how that’s supposed to achieve anything or even relate to the issue?

    Nickel prices are just too darn high. I hope someone in my neighbourhood digs some up, sells it on the international commodities exchange so this can effect the global price of nickel to the degree you’d expect, so someone can then import it and sell it to me locally. My belief is that it being dug up locally means I will pay less when it returns home…. because of duty-free at the airport or something.
    It’s trickle down economics at it’s most fictional! Drill baby drill!

    Yeah…. tell me some more about who’s proudly ignorant here.

    ReplyReply
  13. Hard Right says: 13

    Thanks for proving your stupidity and mindless devotion to your leftist, narcissistic religion.
    Unsurprisingly you didn’t answer one question. Just regurgitated a disproven talking point. Liberalism really is a mental illness.

    ReplyReply
  14. MataHarley says: 14

    Crimson: And yet it’s not liberals who have unanimously agreed that increased production is the answer, to the problem you know it doesn’t solve.

    Therein lies the basis of HR’s point to you. You are incorrect that increased production does not push down prices. And if you demonstrated any curiosity for learning historical trends, you would not continue to stick your cyber mouth into your foot.

    Since you resist going to my post to explore the links, let’s see if you have the focus to go to at least one… James L. Williams (analyst at the energy research firm, WTRG Economics) article, “Oil Price History and Analysis”. The full historic overview is a good education overall, but let’s make it simple for you… a couple of sentences:

    With enough spare capacity to be able to increase production sufficiently to offset the impact of lower prices on its own revenue, Saudi Arabia could enforce discipline by threatening to increase production enough to crash prices. In reality even this was not an OPEC enforcement mechanism unless OPEC’s goals coincided with those of Saudi Arabia.

    When you go thru the history, and the events, you will see that manipulations of oil prices were often attempted in order to control the price per barrel, and the consumption and demand. If prices were low, they would turn the taps down. If the prices were high and depressing consumption, they opened the taps and hit the market with supply.

    When Cushing was feeding oversupply to US refineries, it keep the US prices low, compared to the global market.

    What you suggest cannot happen is, in fact, counter to history. But I’m sure you’d like to hang on to that talking point to attempt to convince a dumber audience.

    ReplyReply
  15. DrJohn says: 15

    @Crimson:

    And yet it’s not liberals who have unanimously agreed that increased production is the answer, to the problem you know it doesn’t solve.

    Then perhaps you could explain why each time gas prices spike Pelosi and company call for release of the SPR.

    ReplyReply
  16. liberalmann says: 16

    Gas prices are not controlled by the President. But the sabre rattling the GOP has been doing about Iran has driven them up and they’ve been doing it intentionally. They don’t care about average Americans having to suffer for their own political gain.

    Obama has increased drilling in the US by 350% and our number 1 export is now…oil! So bitch to the oil companies and get some facts for a change.

    Fox News even agrees:
    No President has the power to increase or to lower gas prices.”
    FLASHBACK: Fox News On Gas Prices In 2008 | Media Matters for America
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203050007

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 17

    oh libdud… when do you get a clue that you are the object of ridicule here?

    Of course a POTUS doesn’t control the price of a barrel of oil on the global market. But what a POTUS does control is an energy policy that focuses on a meaningful and concerted effort to make the nation self-sustaining with domestic and allied resources, not from the volatile Middle East. And that energy policy can’t be just riding on the coattails of his predecessor, or those drilling on private lands outside the purvey of Mr. Green in the WH.

    pffft…. ya can’t fix stupid.

    ReplyReply
  18. johngalt says: 18

    @liberalmann:

    Obama has increased drilling in the US by 350% and our number 1 export is now…oil! So bitch to the oil companies and get some facts for a change.

    We have the facts, liberalmann. And we, mostly Mata concerning the oil issues, attempt to give you the facts, including the links and sources of the info, time and time again.

    ReplyReply
  19. MataHarley says: 19

    johngalt: We have the facts, liberalmann. And we, mostly Mata concerning the oil issues, attempt to give you the facts, including the links and sources of the info, time and time again.

    Ya know, johngalt, ya can’t put stuffing into an empty mattress when there’s no zipper entry….

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    @MataHarley:

    True, I just hate the accusations of us not having facts when plenty of us give not only a highlighted, or quoted section of our sources, but also the links as well.

    ReplyReply
  21. MataHarley says: 21

    Why do you think I call him libdud, @johngalt? Empty mattress, no hope in stuffing it since there’s no entry. A real “dud” in mental capacity.

    But libdud is just a gnat that’s easy to bat around. What becomes more amusing is that even the Zero in the WH knows that increased production is the key.

    “We are concerned about what’s happening in terms of production around the world, it’s not just what’s happening in the Gulf,” Obama said at a White House press conference. He was concerned about oil supply outages in South Sudan and other places, he added.

    Last week a U.S. Energy Information Administration report on sanctions on Iran said outages in Yemen, Syria and the North Sea have tightened oil markets over the last two months.

    …snip…

    Obama reiterated there are no quick fixes to high motor fuel prices, but a combination of measures to reduce oil demand, find new crude sources, and develop new alternative fuels can help manage price spikes over the long run.

    Oh my.. you mean we need to find more SUPPLY? Altho oil isn’t Obama’s preferred supply. I had to crack up at Newt’s Atlanta victory speech (which CNN cut off) when he pointed out that while Obama was mocking the three step GOP plan to “drill, drill more, and drill again”, in the next few minutes he touted the US natural gas resources.

    uh… how does he think natural gas is harvested, except by “drilling”? LOL

    Yes, the US output is increasing, but not at the speed and capacity it could, or should. And no thanks to the temporary denizen at the WH. Permits have declined 23% under this loser.

    Nor under this POTUS is there any indication he wants to loosen the rigor mortis grip of this nation’s dependence on the Middle East.

    But back to the mental dud… apparently he doesn’t even believe his own POTUS. Which should give you an indication of just how empty that mattress is.

    ReplyReply
  22. Crimson says: 22

    Therein lies the basis of HR’s point to you. You are incorrect that increased production does not push down prices. And if you demonstrated any curiosity for learning historical trends, you would not continue to stick your cyber mouth into your foot.

    I’m not arguing it doesn’t push down prices. I’m arguing it hasn’t pushed down prices.
    If you know someone who’s complaining today about historical gas prices a history lesson would be relevant to, name him.
    If you know someone calling for the Keystone pipeline to go ahead so it could actually increase domestic prices while theoretically decreasing them, name him.
    For those 2 people this would be relevant. For everyone else, the current situation is the issue.
    That situation, and your argument, also dont include any suggestion that the US is going to produce enough oil to effect prices in this way, for the obvious reason. You can’t claim this without declaring you have no credibility.

    Historical trends tell you that you need to invest more money in government bailouts and stimulus to decrease the recovery time from significant recessions. This is pretty much a consensus among economists. It is resoundingly disputed among conservatives on the basis that we already tried that and it didn’t work.
    Can I claim that Obama’s stimulus was a resounding success on the basis of pretty much every study of stimulus spending prior to 2009 ? No? Pretty fkn obvious reason why not ?

    There you go.

    ReplyReply
  23. Crimson says: 23

    @DrJohn:

    Then perhaps you could explain why each time gas prices spike Pelosi and company call for release of the SPR.

    Because that does actually have the capability to have this effect, unlike drilling.
    The SPR is the opposite of what’s being discussed. The gas you already purchased in your car’s gas tank is not subject to any international pressures on pricing. Hence when prices go up, the gas you already purchased doesn’t. This is actually something you can release into a market with a negative price effect.

    I am basically explaining to you the point of buying in bulk at CostCo and storing in your basement.

    ReplyReply
  24. Crimson says: 24

    Yes, the US output is increasing, but not at the speed and capacity it could, or should. And no thanks to the temporary denizen at the WH. Permits have declined 23% under this loser.

    Awesome. Here’s a graph for you.
    http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/17/the_new_economics_of_oil/1329494749606.jpg

    Pretty much just the one Presidency involved in that trend there that you’re complaining about.
    I really don’t need to add any argument, it speaks for itself.

    ReplyReply
  25. DrJohn says: 25

    @Crimson:

    Because that does actually have the capability to have this effect, unlike drilling.

    So increasing supply, as Obama encourages and finances Brazil to do via drilling, doesn’t work to increase supply. Now I get it.

    The SPR is the opposite of what’s being discussed.

    No. It’s about increasing supply. I brought it up because that’s how democrats respond every time.

    In 2008 Bush didn’t even need more drilling. The simple threat of increased drilling caused the price of oil to drop.

    ReplyReply
  26. MataHarley says: 26

    Crimson: Awesome. Here’s a graph for you.

    Pretty much just the one Presidency involved in that trend there that you’re complaining about.
    I really don’t need to add any argument, it speaks for itself.

    Why yes… it does speak. Of course it must be in a language you don’t understand, Crimson. Let’s look at your picture education again, shall we?

    uh… just when did the production begin to rise? Hint… before late Jan 2009, when “da won” held his coronation. And much of the increased oil production that began in 2009 was from BP’s Thunder Horse field in the GOM, which came on line in June of 2008 (no thanks to Obama), and hit full capacity in March 2009. Then, of course, there were the permits issued on private lands that didn’t require the government approval. Again no thanks to Obama, but conveniently timed so that the O’faithful could fall to their knees in awe of the brilliance of the O’energy policies.

    Oddly enough, Crimson.. while you are reticent to acknowledge things that happened before the waters were promised to part, your own POTUS recognizes that increased production started before his reign of terror.

    To the contrary, following the BP Deepwater Horizon, Obama slammed the door shut on all permits in the Gulf… shallow and deep water. In August 2010, the Institution for Energy Research warned of reduced production due to Obama’s overly hysterical moratorium on all GOM drilling. Seven to twelve rigs left for other contracts, and a federal court had to order Obama to stop dragging their feet on permits.

    In the following month, even Teflon Bill Clinton was doing some verbal finger wagging, at Obama for his delay.

    So what does the energy genius do? He launches a budget that includes a de facto tax hike on drilling. duh… I do believe the UK is learning their lessons about their 5o% tax on oil with a huge decline in the North Sea production. But then, history isn’t Obama’s forte.

    Meanwhile, here we are in Feb 2012, and the O & G industry is still pleading with this green admin to get off the stick on permitting. They created new nanny regulations and criteria, but didn’t put a process in place a to address permits and the new standards in a timely fashion. What they did was lift the moratorium, and replace it with a permitorium.

    Therefore it’s disingenuous for you to think all increased production since Jan 2009 is because of Obama, when in fact he’s done more to destroy an increasing trend that started prior to his coronation over environmental fears after the Deepwater Horizon spill.

    As far as this comment:

    I’m not arguing it doesn’t push down prices. I’m arguing it hasn’t pushed down prices.

    Obviously it hasn’t pushed down prices. duh… That could be because the increased production is a drop in the bucket for what it could be, or what it needs to be to effect the world spare capacity and supply levels. This is like a somebody shivering in weather -10 degrees, and you toss them a cotton tee or a light sweater, expecting it to help.

    That does not have to be the case with our resources, the American Petroleum Industry noted in Jan this year.

    API’s President and CEO Jack Gerard welcomed the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s new projection that the U.S. will increase domestic production of both oil and natural gas by 2035. But with changes in policy, he said, America’s oil and natural gas industry could produce at home far more of the energy the nation requires, further enhancing its energy security and providing very large benefits to the economy.

    “The increases in domestic oil and gas production forecast by EIA will mean added jobs, revenue and energy security,” said Gerard. “This is progress, but it falls far short of what we could do with greater access to domestic supplies and sounder regulatory policies. We hope the administration will look at the numbers and do what we’ve been asking them to do for a long time: work with us to produce at home even more of the oil and natural gas our nation will require.”

    Gerard said America has huge supplies of untapped oil and natural gas to develop. However, according to EIA’s just released Annual Energy Outlook 2012, current policies will still leave America importing 37 percent of its liquid fuels in 2035 – or about seven million barrels of oil a day. At today’s prices, that is almost three-quarters of a billion dollars a day we would be sending to foreign suppliers. “Without a course correction favoring substantially more domestic oil and natural gas development,” Gerard said, “we could be hemorrhaging U.S. wealth, jobs and economic activity for decades to come.”

    More development of U.S. oil and natural gas resources through increased access, a common sense regulatory structure, a return to pre-moratorium permitting rates, and more imports of secure Canadian crude could by 2035 create as many as 1.4 million jobs, generate $800 billion in additional revenue for our government, and substantially boost U.S. oil and natural gas production, according to a 2011 Wood Mackenzie analysis.

    What we need is a revamp of our energy policy that fast tracks the US to energy independence from the ME with our our oil, natural gas and shale sources, and supplemented by Canadian sources. However to do that, the temporary denizen of the Oval Office needs to be shown the door. He’s standing in the way, and undoing even the minor progress that has been made with the existing wells and permits that were approved prior to his arrival.

    ReplyReply
  27. MataHarley says: 27

    Crimson: Historical trends tell you that you need to invest more money in government bailouts and stimulus to decrease the recovery time from significant recessions. This is pretty much a consensus among economists. It is resoundingly disputed among conservatives on the basis that we already tried that and it didn’t work.

    Right… that’s worked out so well for the Eurozone, eh? You know, I did a post a couple of days after Christmas – Obama Campaign Strategy: Crystal Ball, Unicorns and Houdini Economics – just for you Keynesian types, predicting the economic rhetoric Obama would be using on the campaign trail.

    What you fail to see over history is that the negative feedback loop of debt and central bank infusion just feeds, not cures, the problem.

    Sorry… you’re gonna have to hang out with the Krugman crowd to find those that believe continual suckling of the nation’s teat is the solution, and not part of the problem of unsustainable debt and destructive monetary policies.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>