This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Economy

  • Who needs jobs or oil?

    Several years back, I told my daughter that she should trade in her Acura (Jap Honda POS) and get something cheaper with a better maintenance record. Her answer was “Why do I need an extra $100/month? What will it buy me?”

    I see that myopic strategy at work today in the Obama Administration plans to reject the Keystone pipeline from Fox News;

    For three years, the State Department has been reviewing the initial proposal to run a pipeline from Canada down to Texas through a sensitive Nebraska aquifer — authority it has because of the transnational path the route takes. The pipeline had been through several other federal, state and local approvals, but the department backed away from signing off on the plan last year after environmentalists complained.

    Industry workers and Republicans contend the project would create thousands of jobs, and Canada’s prime minister has warned if the U.S. can’t get on board, the North American nation will look to team with China.

    Who needs thousands of more jobs in this country? Who needs oil money? Letting China move in is a great idea whose time has come. China operates refineries in Africa and is making deals for oil in South and Central America, why not let them in our neighborhood? After all, they’re not really communists anymore, right? They’re no threat. Well, other than their new subs and aircraft carriers.

    Obama has noted his environmental concerns when it comes to energy exploration but insisted Tuesday that a balance could be found.

    “I think the recommendations are sound. We see enormous potential in production of traditional fossil fuels,” he said without mentioning Keystone.

    Once again, I’ll quote Jimmy Carter’s explanation for forming the Department of Energy in his “Malaise Speech“, in which he decried our “crisis of confidence” in government;

    To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the redtape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

    We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

    There has not been a refinery or an oil pipeline built since that speech. Mainly because we subject our energy policy to the whims of filthy hippies who don’t buy gas or need jobs.

  • Former National Security Adviser slams Obama on Keystone

    Earlier this month the former Commandant of the Marine Corps and Obama National Security Adviser General James Jones slammed his former boss over Keystone XL, the pipeline intended to run oil from the Canadian tar sands to refineries in the United States. Jones minced few words:

    Jones, who rarely speaks in public and almost never contradicts his former boss President Barack Obama, lashed out against the administration in a press call and warned of grave consequences to U.S. national security if the project to build the pipeline doesn’t move forward immediately.

    “In a tightly contested global economy, where securing energy resources is a national must, we should be able to act with speed and agility. And any threat to this project, by delay or otherwise, would constitute a significant setback,” said Jones. “The failure to [move forward with the project] will prolong the risk to our economy and our energy security” and “send the wrong message to job creators.”

    The Keystone pipeline is opposed by the usual lunatic Green fringe who hate it for no other reason than it will make the delivery of oil to US markets easier, safer and cheaper. In an increasingly common and always enjoyable juxtaposition, our nation’s unions, always worried about the decay of easily unionized jobs, support the pipeline and the bevy of new (possibly union) jobs it will bring. Our great post-partisan uniter of a President intends to punt on the issue until after the 2012 election cycle, knowing he’ll have to let down one of his core constituencies. Somehow I doubt his former head of National Security scolding him over playing politics will sway him, he’s probably too busy checking the latest Gallup poll. Yes we can.

  • Why does Obama hate jobs?

    Obama wants a tax cut and the Republicans are willing to give him one…if he helps them give a green flag to the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, the Keystone pipeline. Republicans say that the pipeline will provide jobs for at least 20,000 Americans across the country.

    The Obama Administration, however has threatened to veto any bi=partisan approval of the pipeline. In a link from Fox News, they quote the Democrats;

    “It’s a non-starter,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said.

    Her top deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged Republicans to “reconsider” the Keystone language.

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney warned Republicans not to include “extraneous attachments” in the bill.

    “Whatever happened to Republicans being for tax cuts?” Carney asked. “Is it because this one goes to 160 million Americans, middle-class working Americans, that they’re ambivalent or they’re willing to oppose it if they don’t get some political scalp? Is it because President Obama supports it, or Democrats support it?”

    In his 1979 “Malaise Speech” Jimmy Carter, when he announced the establishment of the Energy Department, promised;

    To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the redtape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

    We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

    The emphasis is mine. If they won’t bother to build this pipeline, like they haven’t built a single refinery since that speech, what will Democrats do to put Americans back to work and relieve our dependency on Middle East oil (another broken promise from Jimmy Carter in that speech). And what, exactly, is the purpose of the Energy Department if they just block energy production in this hemisphere?

    Yeah, th Obama Administration wants to make it sound like a tax cut issue, but obviously Republicans are committed to help Americans find work. So what does Obama have against increasing the ranks of the employed, and the tax money that the government would get as a result?

  • We’re ALL Wrong About OWS

    And I feel MUCH better now.

    Over 150 Economists Sign Letter Of Support For OWS

    Recently Newt Gingrich publicly dismissed the Occupy Wall Street movement as being nothing but unemployed, uneducated rabble in need of a bath.

    Of course, this flippant label makes no sense to anyone that has visited an OWS encampment, talked with its supporters, or even lightly researched the movement.

    To further disprove the idea that only idiot socialists would identify with OWS, a group of top economists from around the world recently released a statement supporting the movement (see below).

    “We are economists who oppose ideological cleansing in the economics profession. Equally we oppose political cleansing in the vital debate over the causes and consequences of our current economic crisis.

    We support the efforts of the Occupy Wall Street movement across the country and across the globe to liberate the economy from the short-term greed of the rich and powerful “one percent”.

    We oppose cynical and perverse attempts to misuse our police officers and public servants to expel advocates of the public good from our public spaces.

    We extend our support to the vision of building an economy that works for the people, for the planet, and for the future, and we declare our solidarity with the Occupiers who are exercising our democratic right to demand economic and social justice.”

    See… Don’t you feel bad now?

  • Detroit News: Ford pulls ad under White House pressure

    The above ad was run briefly by Ford to highlight the fact that they didn’t take the offered bailout money from the Obama Treasury Department, but according to the Detroit News, Ford succumbed to White House pressure to remove the ad from circulation;

    The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.

    In other words, where presidential politics and automotive marketing collide — clean, green, politically correct vehicles not included — the president wins and the automaker loses because the benefit of the battle isn’t worth the cost of waging it.

    Ford and the White House both deny that the White House influenced Ford’s decision to pull the ad, but that hardly seems right. Why would Ford go to the expense of making the ad and then pull it, especially since it’s so effective and resonates to certain customers?

  • Class warfare

    I got an email this morning from the Democrat National Committee under the guise of President Obama’s staff explaining to me how the president’s proposal to stop unemployment from rising is not “class warfare”

    Jonn —

    This morning, the President proposed the “Buffett Rule,” which would require those earning more than $1 million a year to pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do.

    This proposal makes sure millionaires and billionaires share the responsibility for reducing the deficit. It would correct, for example, the fact that Warren Buffett’s secretary currently pays taxes at a higher rate than he does.

    The other side is already saying it’s “class warfare” — that’s their rhetorical smokescreen for providing millionaires and billionaires special treatment.

    As the President said this morning, “This is not class warfare — it’s math.”

    The wealthiest Americans don’t need further tax cuts and in many cases aren’t even asking for them. Requiring that they pay their fair share is the only practical way forward. The Republican alternative is to drastically slash education, gut Medicare, let roads and bridges crumble, and privatize Social Security. That’s not the America we believe in — but many in the Republican leadership actually prefer those policies, which explains their refusal to act.

    That’s why they’ll say “tax increase” over and over again, trying to muddy the waters and trick ordinary Americans into thinking the Buffett Rule will hurt them. And if we don’t speak out right now, they just might get away with it.

    If you stand with President Obama in this fight and want to see the Buffett Rule passed — say you’ll get his back now.

    Of course, the Buffett Rule won’t really touch most Americans — only 0.3% of households will even be affected.

    And without it, the only way to reduce our debt is to savage the programs that seniors and middle-class families rely on.

    That’s exactly what the President refuses to do — in fact, he’s said he’ll veto any bill that changes benefits for folks who rely on Medicare but doesn’t raise serious revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share.

    This isn’t just a commonsense approach to cutting the deficit — it’s the only way to make sure we can provide security to people who work hard and play by the rules.

    So right now, I’m asking you to say you’ll stand with the President on something that won’t be easy. Get the President’s back today:

    Yeah, well, yesterday when the president rolled out his proposal, he said that if we don’t let him raise taxes on millionaires, he going to have to raise taxes on retirees…setting one class against another. If that’s not class warfare, I don’t understand the concept.

    And even in the letter, it explains how only .3% of tax payers will be affected by the hike…so the rest of us should feel grateful that the 99.7% of us won’t be affected. Isn’t that class warfare, too?

    Where have we heard that shit before? Oh, yeah, now I remember. During the Clinton Administration, that president promised that he was only raising taxes on the richest Americans. Soon afterward, we all discovered that we all were rich. The Clintons even raised taxes on Social Security recipients, because, you know, they’re all rolling in dough. Even my kids who were working part-time jobs after school saw their taxes increase.

    The letter also states that the President wants to protect “entitlements” to middle class families. How many middle class families depend on entitlement spending? We’re out here working because we don’t get entitlements…and just by mentioning the middle class, that proves it’s class warfare right there.

    I just don’t know how he figures that by taxing the people who hire workers will improve the rate of employment.

  • On that speech last night

    I didn’t watch the President’s address to Congress and the nation last night, mostly because I knew what he was going to say. Since I don’t believe he can do much to create jobs, what’s the use of wasting time I could be reading more interesting fiction instead. I also got an email from him just before the speech which revealed his real reason for his proposals last night;

    Jonn —

    I’m about to head to the Capitol to ask Congress to act on my plan to put Americans back to work.

    Before I do, I wanted to write you directly to remind you that the fight to create jobs — and provide the kind of economic security for middle-class families that’s been slipping away over the last decade — won’t begin or end with the speech I give tonight.

    What happens will be up to you. In the coming days and weeks, it will be up to you to pressure Congress to act — or hold them accountable if they do not.

    If you’re with me, let me know. And the campaign will make sure you are looped into our efforts to support this plan.

    Talk to you soon,

    Barack

    He’s only trying to shift blame for the economy onto Congress before the next election. He knows Congress won’t approve his proposal given the current climate to balance the budget, so when they don’t pass it, he can blame Congress.

    Even the Associated Press says that his proposals aren’t “paid for” as he claimed;

    Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today’s Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.

    So the Republicans were set up last night.

  • Deflecting blame…shooting your own foot

    Apparently, Jay Carney, the nimrod who is currently the White House press secretary, took time out today to blame the President’s poll numbers on the people’s fury with “Washington” according to The Hill.

    Obama’s high-30s approval ratings, Carney said, are a reflection of “a high reservoir of skepticism toward Washington in general.”??

    “I think that everybody associated with Washington is being viewed quite dimly right now,” Carney said. ??

    To that end, Carney continued the White House assault on House Republicans, whom Obama and his allies are blaming for gridlock that “wasn’t just frustrating; it was harmful.”????

    Hey! Numbnuts! You ARE Washington. From where were you speaking? The dead fucking center of Washington…at the best-known address in Washington. If the President isn’t Washington, what the fuck is he?

    Who was the numbnuts who early in his presidency defended his impending agenda with the snarky “I won”? Own it all.

    ADDED: Thanks to Jim Geraghty at the National Review Online for cleaning up my language.