Obama does it again….
Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:
The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell notes that a planned lease sale, which the administration cancelled last year, will now be put off until at least 2018. As you might expect, Republicans were not impressed with the decision:
“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.
But hey, during “his watch” oil drilling is at an 8 year high.
Sigh…
He complained about subsidies to oil companies but was promptly shut up by his own Party.
He attacks drilling offshore, he blocked the Keystone pipeline, refuses to drill in ANWAR, all the while he funnels millions upon millions of our dollars into obviously flawed green energy companies who promptly go bankrupt and THEN tries to take credit for drilling permits issued long before he took office.
Presidents can affect gas prices, at least in the long term, by exercising budgetary discipline resulting in a currency that buys more oil per dollar, by approving or rejecting federal oil leases, and by adding or curbing regulations that affect oil exploration and development. In all of these cases, Obama has supported policies that contribute to higher gas prices.
The point about the lag time between finding and pumping oil is valid. But that reality is precisely why presidents must green-light exploration for future generations — and why Obama is now bragging of record U.S. production only because of his predecessor’s granting of federal oil leases. Obama’s “it takes too long” argument is absurd — as if farmers should never plant new orchards since they won’t see fruit on their trees for three years or more.
And now he is ensuring a 5 year moratorium on drilling on the Atlantic coast.
The man is a joke.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJgKX1pgHA[/youtube]
See author page
It is likely that preventing drilling around Georges Bank is a reasonable thing. There may be a lot of oil there… lots of fish too. Decide.
Our waters are shallow here. A mishap like that which occurred in the gulf… would devastate us for a generation. I love haddock. They are rare.
First thing this administration has done that I agree with.
Obama openly admitted he would NOT return cash from ending oil subsidies to pay down our nation’s debt, but that he would double down on gifts in the forms of subsidies and laons to his cronies in solar and wind.
mmercier makes a point when talking about natural resources, like fish.
The American Bird Conservancy estimates wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds each year.
Altamont’s 5,000 wind turbine ”farm” was put right smack dab in the middle of a major route that migratory birds take yearly.
As a result of body counts proving that 10,000 birds including up to 80 protected golden eagles, 380 burrowing owls, 300 red-tailed hawks and 330 falcons were being shredded each year in Altamont’s turbine blades, a lawsuit forces the ”farm” to turn off its blades for 4 months each year.
Bats are an under-appreciated species.
But bats control flying insects.
Tens of thousands of bats are being killed yearly in the US alone by wind turbine blades.
And solar?
Obama rushed a solar ”farm” through in a CA desert.
OOPS!
His bundler/owner of the ”farm,” missed out on the ecological study that would have told him not to build there as it is killing off many rare species of reptiles, birds and mammals.
He also missed out on learning that he was scraping off sacred burial artifacts from a local tribe’s ancestors.
Double OOPS!
We also know how China controls the mining of the rare earths so necessary to build turbines, solar panels and even the batteries used in electric cars.
China can name its price for those elements.
But it need not be so.
Wyoming also has tons of the same rare earths….just no permits from Obama to mine them.
Obama is really not too bright when it comes to manufacturing, buying, selling, owning or managing anything.
But he can read a teleprompter like no one else!
Imagine if the US were to open up it’s own natural resources to the market. How do you think the market would respond to such vast supplies being available from a very safe and stable location?
@Nan G, #2:
Obama has certainly advocated an end to oil industry subsidies. He spoke in support of a bill intended to do so just last week.
One half of the $24 billion saved by ending oil industry tax breaks was to have gone toward alternative energy development, while the other half was to have gone toward reduction of the federal deficit.
The bill was effectively killed in the Senate a few days ago. Supporters were unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to break a Republican led filibuster.
Why should the industry be getting additional billions in federal tax breaks when they’re closing multiple northeast refineries to boost their profits? Why should private industry receive tax rewards after taking calculated actions that will cost the U.S. economy jobs, increase pump prices, and reduce the overall national supply of gasoline?
I suppose Obama is somehow to blame for that, too.
The ban will only be in effect until shortly after the next president takes office. The next president will void Obama’s banning drilling and other things that are hurting the economy.
If you have been following Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse report, and the states that are making laws that a person running for president will have to prove they are eligible for that position, and that a Federal politician doing the same thing, then you know Obama won’t be allowed to run. Once he is proven ineligible to be president, and the democratic party has to admit that they knew he wasn’t, it won’t matter who the democrats choose as a candidate, if there is a democratic party after all of the facts finally come out. The two best things about him being declared an illegal president is (1) All the things he signed into law will be voided. (2) His next place of residence will be in prison.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/Birther_bill_hits_Congress.html
Does anybody on the left truly understand what oil companies will do if any or all of the oil subsidies are stopped?
Do they really think that the oil companies will NOT pass on that additional cost to do business in the US to its customers or are they naive enough to think the oil companies will just take a finacial hit of billions of dollars on the bottom line?
The whole “lets stick it” to the oil companies mentality out there just astounds me as though the oil companies will have absolutely no recourse if we do that…As gas prices continue to rise I am sure the left will continue to give the chosen one a pass on responsibility and blame everything else under the sun…Somehow that won’t make 5 dollar a gallon gas at the pump any less painful…
Re: comment # 4, Greg, oil companies do NOT receive subsidies, unlike “green energy” companies. Oil companies receive tax credits for expensies they incur, or tax incentives to continue operation. And could record profits have anything to do with record driving levels? Further, the Menendez bill (to which you alude) was killed by a Senate procedure, which is NOT a filibuster, as you state.
I think that Bobachek, in comment # 6, says it best: ” Do they really think that the oil companies will NOT pass on that additional cost to do business in the US to its customers or are they naive enough to think the oil companies will just take a finacial hit of billions of dollars on the bottom line?”
Is the EPA turning out to be the new IIPC?
You know, the UN climate agency famous for phony research to bolster its warmist opinions?
Seems the EPA is starting to be exposed in court for the same type of garbage; this time about fracking and water pollution.
The EPA held things up for over a year based on lies.
That’s got to stop.
Fracking has got to be done carefully and with multiple safeguards, but it can be done safely.
@Greg: Agree with Warren and Bobachek. Tell me why didn,t the Pres say this in the 1st 2 years of his being the Pres? wait to it,s politics time to demonize all who disagree with him and he knows that it will not pass this year so use it as political issue. the guy is a jerk low life.
Why does the O-“man” hate America? Everything he does proves it. This is just another example.
Six dislike votes on #4, and the only two responses to the questions are:
#6 There’s no point in trying to collect taxes from certain businesses, because they’ll just recover anything they’re required to pay by shaking down captive consumers, and
#7 Tax breaks aren’t really subsidies, so any dollars lost from federal revenues as a result don’t really matter to the federal deficit.
Any other suggestions?
Why should the industry be getting additional billions in federal tax breaks when they’re closing multiple northeast refineries to boost their profits?
Why should private industry receive tax rewards after taking calculated actions that will cost the U.S. economy jobs, increase pump prices, and reduce the overall national supply of gasoline?
@Greg: Why do you want gas prices to double?
@John: #10
I figured it out when he was campaigning for the democratic nomination to run for president when he said he wanted a civilian security force that was as strong, and equally funded as the military. That told me right then what his intentions are for the USA.
Even if the thought that it would be used to defeat the military didn’t enter anyones head, the amount of money that it would take to fund it should have been a major issue. Evidently Hillary didn’t think about Obama using the force to overthrow the USA, or the cost of maintaining such a force, or she would have brought it up when she was running for the position.
@Greg: #11
Businesses don’t pay any taxes. I pay their taxes for them every time I buy their products. They are just a collection agency for the Internal Redistribution Service.
I go along with a lot of others that we enact the Fair Tax that has been introduced into congress, but hasn’t been put out for a vote because the speakers of the house and senate don’t want it. The other alternative is to get rid of all business taxes and enact the Flat Tax so that we all pay the same percent in taxes. If the Fair Tax was enacted by the Federal and state governments, you wouldn’t have to file ANY income tax forms at all. Wouldn’t that be great?!
With either tax system the businesses would not only save on the taxes they pay, but they would save on the accountants they wouldn’t need any more and the storage areas they wouldn’t need for all of the tax forms and other info they would’t need to file any more. Eventually, with competition, prices would come down so that the companies would be making the same profit, but selling at a much less price.
@Jarhead68: #12
Maybe he has stock in oil.
@Smorgasbord, #14:
Well sir, if that’s actually the case, they certainly worry, howl, whine, and lobby a great deal over something they don’t have pay. They apparently spend billions to influence tax laws that don’t really affect the money they pocket.
Re: comment # 11, Greg, you say, “Any other suggestions?” Yes, why does not Obama offer a realistic budget, one that doesn’t spend so much, so oil company tax incentives/tax breaks (available to ANY company) won’t have to be singled out.
You say, “…when they’re closing multiple northeast refineries to boost their profits?” Can you offer any links to back your statement?
You say, “…taking calculated actions that will cost the U.S. economy jobs, increase pump prices, and reduce the overall national supply of gasoline?” Same question, can you offer ANY substantion for your statement?
Or are we just supposed to accept your assertions “because you said so?”
@Warren, #17:
Sorry. You’re right, I really should have linked some sources:
From Bloomberg News, Friday, March 23, 2012:
Another from Bloomberg, February 23, 2012:
Angry About High Gas Prices? Blame Shuttered Oil Refineries
From Caribbean Journal – Wednesday, January 18th, 2012:
Largest oil refinery in Caribbean to close
From Oil Price(dot)com, January 26, 2012:
Peak Oil Crisis Being Compounded by Refinery Closures
“Peak oil,” has nothing to do with it!
Those older, dirtier northeast refineries that are closing had been designed only to refine ”light sweet crude,” oil.
That is the planet’s highest priced oil!
ConocoPhillips is one oil company trying to put in winning bids on many of these northeast refineries.
Their plan?
To modernize each refinery AND make it capable of refining other, CHEAPER crudes……cleanly.
@Greg: #16
The conservatives at FA knew what I meant. To make it simple for you, the higher the taxes are on a business, the higher the price is for their product. They COLLECT a higher price for their product than they would if there were no taxes on them, then they PASS the money collected for the Internal Redistribution Service on to them. If taxes are raised on the business, then prices will go up so the business can collect more of YOUR money for the IRS, thus you are again paying the taxes that the government imposes on business. Think of a business as an ATM for the Internal Redistribution Service where you can make a deposit to pay the taxes on the product.
You would be surprised to see how low the price would be if there weren’t any taxes on the product. If I owned a business, I would try to have the cash register show what the price would be if there were no taxes on it. One reason the politicians don’t want the Fair Tax (national sales tax) is because it would show the EXACT amount of the tax on each purchase, and the politicians don’t want you to know how much that is.
Just out of curiosity, if Obama gets his way and takes the tax brakes away from the oil companies, will you be OK with the companies raising their gas prices to pay for the extra amount they will then pay in taxes, or should they leave prices alone and hope they don’t go bankrupt? They are not government subsidies. Most of them are the same tax breaks all companies get. Should all companies loose the tax breaks, or just the oil companies?
One thing the propaganda media used to do is to add up all of the income the oil companies made from all of the different types of businesses they had around the word. I don’t know if they are still doing that today, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Let’s do it this way: Let’s decide what percent profit all businesses are allowed to make without paying any taxes. We then tax them on a progressive scale, taxing them a higher percent the more they earn. I don’t have the numbers, but most other types of businesses would get to the higher percent profits before the oil companies.
One problem with the way you are looking at it is that you are looking at the TOTAL profit without looking at the amount of products sold. Let’s say a small business makes an 8% profit for the year, and their profit amounts to $100,000. As I said before, I don’t know the numbers, but lets say that an oil company made a $2,000,000,000 profit, but their percent of profit was only 7% because they sold a lot more of their product than the small business.
If your income keeps rising enough that you keep getting into higher and higher tax brackets, or you own a business that does the same, will you be content to pay about half of your profits to the Federal and state government? At one time the highest Federal tax rate I heard of was about 70%.
@Warren: #17
Why doesn’t Obama offer “A” budget? Remember, the democrats haven’t offered ANY budget for over 1,000 days.
QUESTION FOR YOU LIBS
Why aren’t you demanding your politicians present a budget like the law says they should EACH YEAR?
ANSWER#17
…why does not Obama offer a realistic budget….
Why doesn’t Obama offer “A” budget? Remember, the democrats haven’t offered ANY budget for over 1,000 days.
QUESTION FOR YOU LIBS
Why aren’t you demanding your politicians present a budget like the law says they should EACH YEAR?
PLEASE ANSWER
Why doesn’t Obama offer a realistic budget?
A good question. The following one is just as good.
Why hasn’t the republican House offered one? (Anyone who thinks they have done is totally ignoring the real issues, which in an election year are political nitroglycerin.)
Five budget realities no politician will talk about (not even Ron Paul)
@Greg: #22
Greg,
You would make a good ex wife. Mine always did like you do. You never answer a question with an ANSWER. You ALWAYS answer with a QUESTION, or find something or someone else that is worse. The advantage to that kind of an answer is that you and her never have to admit you made a mistake.
Admitting to making a mistake is part of growing up, or getting along with someone else. I probably learned more from the mistakes I made than any other way. Go ahead, try it. Just once in your life say, “I was wrong.” The good part about saying you are wrong is that you don’t have to try to defend it any more and you quit making yourself look really stubborn. Can you say it just once? “Try it, you’ll like it.”
Nan. G
I think, correct me if I’m wrong, that IRVING CANADIAN FROM ST JOHN NEW BRUNSWICK, are also in USA, AND i READ THAT THEY DO THAT REFINING LIGHT SWEET CRUDE OIL,
THEY HAVE MANY GAZ STATIONS ALL OVER CANADA AND THEY ARE THE FAMILY BUSYNESS FROM MANY GENERATIONS AND HAVE OPEN IN THE USA JUST A FEW YEARS AGO TO EXPAND THERE,
I haven’t read about them since a good while,
bye
Obama has proposed a budget for each year through 2013. His idea of “realistic” takes into account the needs of people that the republic budget proposals would essentially throw to the sharks.
It’s the President’s responsibility to propose a budget each year. It’s the responsibility of the two houses of Congress to come together and actually pass one. The fact that they can’t come to terms is one of the reasons their approval rating is in constant danger of dropping to a single digit number.
The republican idea of “realistic” is apparently to cut taxes even further when deficits are already rising. They apparently believe they can achieve a balanced budget after doing so by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and anything else that benefits the middle class, the working class, and the poor.
Believing that they can get away with that beyond one election simply isn’t realistic. At some point, their middle class and working class supporters will finally realize that they’re included among those who will take the hits.
If we want sustainable support for the difficult measures necessary to really solve our nation’s systemic budget problems, everybody is going to have to share in the sacrifices. That means more a more progressive tax schedule with significantly higher top end rates, among other things. “Among other things” includes necessary adjustments to Social Security benefits, mandatory participation in a health insurance program, rational cost controls on healthcare services, etc.
I think part of growing up is understanding and accepting things like that. You can’t have everything you want. That applies to rich and poor alike. You have a responsibility to other people in your society. That also applies to rich and poor alike.
@Greg: #24
I guess this means that you are going to keep sitting in that pan of slowly warming water that I got out of a few years ago. I won’t show you the charts because you have been shown them before. I will just say one more time and then be done with this conversation: Every time that taxes went up, the economy went down. Every time that taxes went down, the economy went up. I wonder what boiled liberal tastes like. I don’t want to be the first to try it.
@Greg: business collect taxes each time they sell their products. Hence , they are tax collectors-#1, #2 employees-make lower wages as companies have to make profits or go out of business, #3- stock holders get smaller dividend cheks if they are paid out. Investments take risk, former employees if they have pension plans are at risk of higher taxes, as again, if no profits then a business can go out of business.
@Greg: why do i have a responsbility to society? explain that one to me. what do you mean by that? and about SS, what are you going to say when they raise the SS retirement age to age 70-72? Just a matter of time.
CURT
HI,
I tryed again to put a comment for the 3rd time and it did not come in, again,
I thought I had forgot to click on the POST YOUR COMMENT, yesterday, but tryed again today and did not succeeded, now I’m trying this one to see if it will get to you,
bye
CURT
THAT IS WEERD ANOTHER ONE TO YOU DID NOT PASS
@Greg:
Nice articles Greg. I read a few others, and the only reason I can find that these refineries are closing is because they are losing money. If you want to spin that to read they are doing it to boost profits, I guess closing due to losing money can be read that way. But there is also the fact that the EPA is constantly introducing new regulations on old refineries and the cost to make the upgrades and complying with these regulations forces the refineries to close in favor of their more “modern” facilities. I say modern because the democrats have blocked all efforts to build more modern refineries.
http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6
You can’t have your cake and eat it too Greg. If you want to cheer on the EPA and their over regulation, and cheer on the democrats efforts to block new refineries, don’t whine when the companies close the refineries that can no longer meet the draconian EPA and Obama standards.
Nan. G
ON 2, THIS IS SO TRAGIC, THERE IS NO WAY TO IMAGINE THE MAGNETUDE OF IT,
AND THE CONSEQUENCES LINK TO IT, I DID THINK IT WAS BAD IDEA, AND IF ME A REGULAR NOT GIFTED HUMAN CAN ENVISAGE IT AT THE FIRST SIGHT OF ONE OF THOSE TOWER SPINNING ,
WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO HOLD POWER OF DECISIONS TO SET UP THOUSANDS OF THOSE TOGETHER , THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE GIFTED ON A SUPERIOR LEVEL, JUST TO SAY HOW THEY ARE NOT
THEY ALL HAD TO BE BRAINLESS AND BLINDED BY THEIR GREED TO PROFIT AND WILLINGLY DISREGARD TO PROJECT THE MASSACRE IN THEIR PLAN TO KILL THE BIRDS OF ALL SPECIES COMING OVER THOSE TO GET SUCKED IN MERCILESSLY.
I am so sad to hear those astronomic numbers, NATURE WILL PUNISH US ALL, IT MIGHT BE COMING FROM THE SMALLEST GOD CREATURES THE INSECTS WILL THRIVE AND TORMENT HUMANS WITH PLAGUES NEVER SEEN BEFORE FOR THOSE STUPID ACTIONS
WITH A VENGEANCE FOR HAVING DESTROY SO MANY OF BEAUTIFUL TREASURE GOD GAVE US TO PROTECT, CRY AMERICA CRY WITH REAL TEARS AND SCREAM YOUR ANGER AND MINE TO THE LEADER OF SUCH DISASTER.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Thanks bees.
One small point, though.
Raptor birds (eagles, hawks, falcons, shrikes and so on) don’t get ”sucked” into wind turbines.
They can’t see them.
The way their eyes are designed is as if your eyes had strong binoculars glued on.
They all fly way up high and focus on the ground.
When they see a rabbit or field mouse they swoop down to grab it with their strong talons.
Somewhere between them and their prey are the turbine’s blades.
Out of focus and spinning by quickly, these blades are invisible to the bird.
It literally swoops down into the blade, never even knowing it was there.
For a ”greenie” to understand their plight he would have to have binoculars glued to his eyes and be thrown out of a plane (oh, give him a parachute) right into a wind ”farm.”
Not easy to land safely.
Nan. G
I can be cruel to say those planning, selling it, should have pick the one who have the power to okay the project, ,,,,I know you see me coming to my intent….
the one with the power to okay the project, and test it with him on a parachute coming out over thoses groups of WIND TOWERS, THEY COULD HAVE MISS ON ONLY ONE,
BUT NOT ON THAT GROUP.
THAN IT WOULD HAVE SERVE THE ECONOMY TO END IT,
LIKE OBAMA SAID; FOCUS LIKE A LASER BEAM ON THE REAL SHOVEL READY ISSUES,
THE SHOVEL WOULD HAVE BEEN READY TO PICK HIM UP,
WHAT’S THE LIFE OF A HUMAN OUT TO KILL A MULTITUDE OF BIRDS OF ALL SIZES AND COLORS AND EACH OF THEM WAS THERE SERVING THE WISDOM OF NATURE’S PURPOSE.
NO NOT CRUEL BUT FAIR.
thank you Nan
Nan.G
LOOK AT THIS. unbalance theory of OBAMA green dreams.
he is willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of birds as long as those wind towers are there, even more than millions,
as oppose to the insectiside which people would pulverize the insects to get rid of the over population of those blood suckers also those who eat the crops, shew on trees leave get into house living in cracks, and those termites eating the whole house from the foundation.
then the humans would get cancer from those poison on the market now but multiply in just a few seasons
the flowers would get sprayed overly which would kill the polinaters for sure, and so on and so on
now the big insects would become abundant in numbers, you would see them everywhere on the road where we walk not wanting to step on, more trucks spraying more often.
and so on and so on
was it worth killing the birds?
@Greg: So Obama comes into office, spends nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS on his stimulus package, then the Democratically controlled Senate refuses to pass a budget for three years, making the government operate on continuing resolutions and you are okay with this?
The combination of Obama’s insane spending and CRs means that the “one time” stimulus spending has been folded into the baseline of the federal budget, and all you can do is blame the GOP? Might I remind you that Paul Ryan’s budget passed in the House, but Reid said it will die a slow death in the Senate…
Greg, we all know you are a socialist, utopian with dreams of turning to the government for everything from health care to shoe laces, but when you say things that aren’t true, you just look like a partisan hack.
I read the articles you linked about the refineries. No where in those articles was the effect the EPA is having on them talked about.
.
.
@Greg #11…..
“Why should the industry be getting additional billions in federal tax breaks when they’re closing multiple northeast refineries to boost their profits?”
In Greg #18.. he gives his “Cites” of info…….. YO GREG!! Do you bother, to READ the stories you quote, OTHER THAN THE HEADLINES????
HERE, from YOUR CITE.. is why those “evil sinister oil guys”.. are closing down those refineries, to “FORCE PROFITS UP”.. as YOU Claim!! LOL!!
Quoting from Gregs own “Cite”….
“Over the past year, refineries have faced a classic margin squeeze. Prices for Brent crude have gone up, but demand for gasoline in the U.S. is at a 15-year low. That means refineries haven’t been able to pass on the higher prices to their customers. As a result, companies have chosen to shut down a handful of large refineries rather than continue to lose money on them.”
Light bulb go on yet?? DUH!! By the way, Greggy.. “The Devil is in the DETAILS”….. try READING THEM!!
Anticsrocks #35.. you nailed it good there!!!
anticsrocks
HI,
AS USUAL YOU ARE GREAT AND YOUR ABILITY TO EXPLAIN ON THE 4 CORNERS OF THE ISSUE
IS UN-SURPASS
I was wondering before you arrive, where you where, and you answer my thought.
best to you
@roger o.: #27
At one of the Washington DC rallies I was at, one young man saw my sign and said, “There’s plenty of money for everybody.” Each time I said something, his only response was, “There’s plenty of money for everybody.” I quickly figured out that what he was really saying was, “There’s plenty of money for everybody, so I shouldn’t have to work for mine.” I said something about that I think people should have to work for it, turned, and left. There’s no use wasting your time on people like him.
I am on Social Security now. I have paid into it from my first job. If I could have invested the money I paid into SS in a private retirement plan, there would be millions in it now. SS was SUPPOSED to be retirees only, and only the ones who paid into it. It started off wrong in the first place, because certain people could pay a certain amount into it and later get full retirement benefits for the rest of their life. I knew one person who had plenty of money who paid into it and got SS for the rest of his long life.
Politicians don’t like to see Federal accounts grow and not be able to touch it. SS was originally in a separate account, and only those who paid into it received it. Then, the democrats moved it into the general fund so they could do with it what they wanted. There is no SS trust fund that the politicians keep mentioning. It was abolished long ago.
Since the politicians assume that any money in a Federal account is THEIR money, they started using the SS money to give to qualifying children, then to qualifying adults not yet retirement age. The thing that makes me the maddest is when I found out that SS is going to the illegals. Some of them are getting a bigger SS check than I am, and I paid into it all of my working life.
One way to fix the SS problem is to put it back into a separate account and only use it for the retirement of those who paid into it. Both parties have had full control of congress and the white house, but CHOSE not to fix the problem. There are far too many votes involved to quit sending checks to people who don’t deserve them. As I have said different times, we no longer have two political parties. We have one party with two branches.
One way to tell that the two parties are working together is to look at the Obama birth certificate issue. An open minded person can look at the certificate themselves and tell it is a fake, but the republicans haven’t done anything to get a person who isn’t even a legal citizen of the USA out of the office of the president. The whole idea now for both branches of the republicatic party is to take as much control as they can over people, and to take as much money from them as they can.
@Hankster58: Thank you, Hankster. 🙂
@ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks, Ms. Beezy!
@anticsrocks: #35
Maybe Greg wasn’t taught that he has to pull the pin before throwing the grenade. That isn’t ignorance. It’s just lack of proper training.
@Smorgasbord: 😆 Ha! Good one! 😆
@Smorgasbord:
He won’t be back to debate this one. Once his argument has been destroyed, he waits for the next talking point. It’s how you know you’ve won the argument with Greg.
@Aqua: #43
This is also why I very seldom reply to any lib unless they direct there message to me directly. I apply the ” wrestling with a pig in the mud” rule. Sometimes I can’t resist commenting though.
Smorgasbord
hi,
I can’t resist either, even if get burn, I think It’s worth the game,
I learned it here too. from all of you SMART CONSERVATIVES,
PART of why I love FA
bye
@Smorgasbord:
He was begging someone to challenge him, so I had no choice. 🙂
Then antics sealed the door and bricked it up on him.
@Aqua: #48
Unfortunately, just like the dead liberals in Chicago, he will arise when he thinks he is needed again.
Aqua
hi,
I’m wondering how come you left anticsrocks to do that big job by himself,
that is a lot of work, I didn’t know antics was also a brick layer,
bye
@Smorgasbord: Thanks Smorgasbord, my brother is probably a liberal? He probably voted for Pres Obama. Me i voted for McCain. But one time i was talking to him as he is a CFO of a private company that has offices all across the US. But he just laughed about SS and said it was headed for diaster right from the start as the way it was set up it could not go on forever.