Posts
Important Enough to Re-Blog:
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2013/01/stubborn-stupidity-of-obama-voter.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ReaganiteRepublicanResistance+%28Reaganite+Republican%29
Til Nex'Time....
Showing posts with label class warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class warfare. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Thursday, November 29, 2012
This'n'That; November Twenty-Nineth #1; Taxes-AGAIN!
The "Why" Of Buffett's Tax Proposal
The "Oracle of Omaha" has proposed income tax alternatives which HE thinks the negotiators should consider. Mr Buffett is being a bit disingenuous in his proposal.... he speaks of income taxes while HIS annual compensation falls under the 'dividends and interest' portion of the IRS Tax Code.
The aforementioned 'alternatives:'
Warren Buffett is suggesting in his proposal for higher taxes on the wealthiest of Americans-a minimum rate of 30% (those earning $1M+) and 35% (those earning $10M+).
The Buffett 'suggestion' continues with a $500,000 defined threshold of 'rich millionaires and billionaires' rather than the "Clown Prince's" $250,000; saying that
"....in some parts of the country, $250,000 barely convers a middle-class lifestyle."
[Here's where Warren Buffett misses "Clown Prince" obama's point. The "Clown Prince" has no inclination what-so-ever in allowing the average citizen to ever advance in 'class.']
Let's see how Mr Buffett's obfuscations affect his hypothetical 'income' taxes vs his actual taxes.
It's a given that Mr Buffett's current annual compensation is $100,000.
It's a given that Mr Buffett's current annual compensation is completely derived from dividends his portion of Berkshire-Hathaway generates.
If Mr Buffett's $100,000 compensation were actually subject to income taxes, after allowable deductions his rate would be 39.12995%!! Because his compensation is entirely derived from dividends Mr Buffett is taxed essentially at 15%. There are several different reasons for and levels of, the unearned income (dividends and interest-capital gains) tax rates. This is why Mr Buffett--during the most recent tax year--paid a 17.7% rate.
One fact all the socio-fascists are ignoring:
Higher taxes do not equal higher revenue (here and here)!
Til Nex'Time....
The "Oracle of Omaha" has proposed income tax alternatives which HE thinks the negotiators should consider. Mr Buffett is being a bit disingenuous in his proposal.... he speaks of income taxes while HIS annual compensation falls under the 'dividends and interest' portion of the IRS Tax Code.
The aforementioned 'alternatives:'
Warren Buffett is suggesting in his proposal for higher taxes on the wealthiest of Americans-a minimum rate of 30% (those earning $1M+) and 35% (those earning $10M+).
The Buffett 'suggestion' continues with a $500,000 defined threshold of 'rich millionaires and billionaires' rather than the "Clown Prince's" $250,000; saying that
"....in some parts of the country, $250,000 barely convers a middle-class lifestyle."
[Here's where Warren Buffett misses "Clown Prince" obama's point. The "Clown Prince" has no inclination what-so-ever in allowing the average citizen to ever advance in 'class.']
Let's see how Mr Buffett's obfuscations affect his hypothetical 'income' taxes vs his actual taxes.
It's a given that Mr Buffett's current annual compensation is $100,000.
It's a given that Mr Buffett's current annual compensation is completely derived from dividends his portion of Berkshire-Hathaway generates.
If Mr Buffett's $100,000 compensation were actually subject to income taxes, after allowable deductions his rate would be 39.12995%!! Because his compensation is entirely derived from dividends Mr Buffett is taxed essentially at 15%. There are several different reasons for and levels of, the unearned income (dividends and interest-capital gains) tax rates. This is why Mr Buffett--during the most recent tax year--paid a 17.7% rate.
One fact all the socio-fascists are ignoring:
Higher taxes do not equal higher revenue (here and here)!
Til Nex'Time....
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
This'n'That; March Fourteenth #3; Dumbo!!
owe-bama Resembles 'Dumbo!'
Nah!! Come-ON, now!! Ya know we ain't s'pose'ta refer to "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist's" gargantuan--most hugest--ears!! I really ment the guy is--as we say over here--"Dumb as a f*ckin' post!!" Who ever is America's next ruler had better recruit a better research staff than barackingham Palace's current crop! You'd think the staff could research a topic before they upload the "Clown Prince's" blusterful blather onto the several teleprompters necessary for him to speak. Apparently not!
While the "Clown Prince" continues on with his class-warfare campaign his 'thought-masters' failed to get the facts before he condemns everything and anything in the name of 'more votes.' The guy seems locked onto this "$4 Billion in 'Big Oil' subsidies" mantra. Had they any competency a'tall, the "Clown Prince's" research staff wudd'a checked with the Congressional Research Service and found that 'Big Oil' pays EIGHTY-SIX MILLION BUCKS A Day into the U.S. Treasury. Now, that $86 Million times 365.25 days equals: A whole boat-load'a cash, each-and-every-year!!!! Forbes Magazine says 'Big Oil' is the biggest and best 'stimulus package' the Regime has going for it!!
"Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist" seems hell-bent on "bettin' on the wrong horse:" Since 2007, subsidies to the unsustainable--not commercially viable--green energy sector have increased 287% ($5.1 Billion to $14.67 Billion!!). If the "Clown Prince" really-and-truly wants a commercially viable green energy sector, he's gott'a revamp George Soros' mindset. Said mindset has to change from using green energy subsidies to reward his (and owe-bama's) buddies and begin to ACTUALLY fund RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT!!
While the "Clown Prince" wants green energy to replace fossil fuels TOMORROW MORNING, it ain't gonna happen!! As Rush Limbaugh says (and I paraphrase):
"When a green energy source can get a Boeing aircraft off-the-ground, he (and I) will be all for it!!"
These 'Big Oil' tax loopholes and subsidies the "Clown Prince" is constantly whinning about?!? In the mid-'80s, "Ronaldus-Magnus" (owe-bamacRATics: that's President Ronald Reagan!!) swapped them for equal tax-cuts. Since logic no longer resides in either barackingham Palace or the formerly "Hallowed Halls" of Congress, the 'rewards' have crept back into the tax code!! The "Clown Prince's" only problem with said 'rewards:'
He ain't controllin'em!!
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Archloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....
Nah!! Come-ON, now!! Ya know we ain't s'pose'ta refer to "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist's" gargantuan--most hugest--ears!! I really ment the guy is--as we say over here--"Dumb as a f*ckin' post!!" Who ever is America's next ruler had better recruit a better research staff than barackingham Palace's current crop! You'd think the staff could research a topic before they upload the "Clown Prince's" blusterful blather onto the several teleprompters necessary for him to speak. Apparently not!
While the "Clown Prince" continues on with his class-warfare campaign his 'thought-masters' failed to get the facts before he condemns everything and anything in the name of 'more votes.' The guy seems locked onto this "$4 Billion in 'Big Oil' subsidies" mantra. Had they any competency a'tall, the "Clown Prince's" research staff wudd'a checked with the Congressional Research Service and found that 'Big Oil' pays EIGHTY-SIX MILLION BUCKS A Day into the U.S. Treasury. Now, that $86 Million times 365.25 days equals: A whole boat-load'a cash, each-and-every-year!!!! Forbes Magazine says 'Big Oil' is the biggest and best 'stimulus package' the Regime has going for it!!
"Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist" seems hell-bent on "bettin' on the wrong horse:" Since 2007, subsidies to the unsustainable--not commercially viable--green energy sector have increased 287% ($5.1 Billion to $14.67 Billion!!). If the "Clown Prince" really-and-truly wants a commercially viable green energy sector, he's gott'a revamp George Soros' mindset. Said mindset has to change from using green energy subsidies to reward his (and owe-bama's) buddies and begin to ACTUALLY fund RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT!!
While the "Clown Prince" wants green energy to replace fossil fuels TOMORROW MORNING, it ain't gonna happen!! As Rush Limbaugh says (and I paraphrase):
"When a green energy source can get a Boeing aircraft off-the-ground, he (and I) will be all for it!!"
These 'Big Oil' tax loopholes and subsidies the "Clown Prince" is constantly whinning about?!? In the mid-'80s, "Ronaldus-Magnus" (owe-bamacRATics: that's President Ronald Reagan!!) swapped them for equal tax-cuts. Since logic no longer resides in either barackingham Palace or the formerly "Hallowed Halls" of Congress, the 'rewards' have crept back into the tax code!! The "Clown Prince's" only problem with said 'rewards:'
He ain't controllin'em!!
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Archloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....
Thursday, March 8, 2012
This'n'That; March Eighth #1; Unremarkable Remarks!
The "Condemning-Conservatives" Tour
Compaigning on the "Taxpayers's Dime;"
"Clown Prince" Blather from Mount Holly, N.C.
....the Freighterline trucks that you’re making here at this plant run on natural gas, and that makes them quieter, it makes them better for the environment, it makes them cheaper to fill up than they would be with diesel. I hear you sold your 1,000th natural gas truck last November -– (applause) -- the first company to reach that milestone. And it was made right here in Mount Holly. (Applause.) And last year, this plant added more than 1,000 workers, hiring back a lot of folks who were laid off during the recession. (Applause.) That is something to be proud of.
Relative to the trucks you're building here in Mount Holly, my regime has not taken a stance on the on-going 'fracking' controversy in New York and other states where it's not an approved method of natural gas extraction. We plan to let the kerfuffle play out and take the side of 'the winners.'You're building trucks that use less oil. And you know that’s especially important right now because most of you have probably filled up your gas tank a time or two in the last week, and you've seen how quickly the price of gas is going up. A lot of you may have to drive a distance to work. Higher gas prices are like a tax straight out of your paycheck. And for companies that operate a whole fleet of trucks, the higher costs can make a big difference in terms of the profitability of the company. Now, here's the thing, though -- this is not the first time we've seen gas prices spike. It's been happening for years. Every year, about this time, gas starts spiking up, and everybody starts wondering, how high is it going to go? And every year, politicians start talking when gas prices go up. They get out on the campaign trail -- and you and I both know there are no quick fixes to this problem -- but listening to them, you'd think there were. As a country that has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world's oil -- I'm going to repeat that -- we've got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we're doing to increase oil production, we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth.
My blather about today's fuel price increases is only a partial lie. Oil prices--and by extension, the retail fuel prices--are cyclical in nature; driven by both demand and production. What I leave out of every 'energy' blather event is that the national retail fuel price average has doubled--actually gone up about 105%--since my immaculation, and still climbing!!
Those oil statistics I quote are complete obfuscations of the actual facts as well as the listeners' perceptions of their meaning. I take advantage of the public ignorance as to the definitions of various numbers I quote. When I speak of '2 percent of the world oil reserves....' I actually mean 2% of the worldwide amount of oil actually extracted, NOT 2% of the world's DISCOVERED oil reserves. If what I say were actually true, wouldn't it stand to reason that we'd have to import 98% of our annual oil usage?!?
"We're not going to be able to just drill out way out of the problem of high gas prices."
I like to make that statement in my campaign speeches. Most attend my blather opportunities due to my notoriety, not because they believe--or agree with--my message. Look at the production problem logically: From application to the first production well, the drilling process is several years long. From that perspective, we'd have lower gas prices today if only that evil George W. Bush would have approved more drilling permits. It's all his fault, I'm just following his lead!! If the country will always have high fuel prices relative to the number of producing wells; why drill at all?!? Why not just import 100% of our oil needs?!? One of the most contradictory actions to come along since my immaculation has been the KeyStone XL pipeline. It has nothing to do with oil exploration, with oil drilling, with oil production; it's only involved with the transportation of crude oil from Canada to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. And yet, I refused to approve it even though the various federal departments could find no area in which the pipeling was not in compliance!!Here is the truth. If we are going to control our energy future, then we’ve got to have an all-of-the-above strategy. We’ve got to develop every source of American energy -- not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels. We need to invest in the technology that will help us use less oil in our cars and our trucks, in our buildings, in our factories. That’s the only solution to the challenge. Because as we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down. It's pretty straightforward. That’s the only solution to this challenge. And that’s the strategy that we’ve now been pursuing for the last three years. And I’m proud to say we’ve made progress. Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year. In fact, in 2010, it went under 50 percent for the first time in 13 years. You wouldn’t know it from listening to some of these folks out here -- (laughter) -- some of these folks -- (laughter) -- but a key part of our energy strategy has been to increase safe, responsible oil production here at home. Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than any time in the last eight years. Under my administration, we’ve quadrupled the number of operating oilrigs to a record high. We’ve got more oilrigs operating now than we’ve ever seen. We’ve opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. We’ve approved more than 400 drilling permits that follow new safety standards after we had that mess down in the Gulf. We’re approving dozens of new pipelines. We just announced that we’ll do whatever we can to speed up construction of a pipeline in Oklahoma that’s going to relieve a bottleneck and get more oil to the Gulf -- to the refineries down there -- and that’s going to help create jobs, encourage more production. So these are the facts on oil production. If somebody tells you we’re not producing enough oil, they just don’t know the facts.
The 'development' I speak of should be true development, not a method of reward! How much actual development was financed by federal pork paid to Solyndra?!? I contend, very little! And, Solyndra was but one of those we financed that filed for bankruptcy a few short months--in some cases, just weeks--after accepting the federal 'checks.' In all cases, the corporate hierarchies involved were paid--and even received substantial bonuses--as many thousands were laid off--in some cases--with unfulfilled final paychecks. Many contend--and in most cases, it's proven out--that these federal alternative energy SCAMS are little more than rewards to the regime's donors, supporters and campaign workers.
But how much oil we produce here at home, because we only have 2 percent and we use 20, that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide, or here in the United States. Oil is bought and sold on the world market. And the biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East. You guys have been hearing about what’s happening with Iran; there are other oil producers that are having problems. And so people have gotten uncertain. And when uncertainty increases, then sometimes you see speculation on Wall Street that drives up gas prices even more. But here's the thing. Over the long term, the biggest reason oil prices will go up is there's just growing demand in countries like China and India and Brazil. There are a lot of people there. In 2010 alone, China added nearly 10 million cars on its roads. Think about that -- 2010, 10 million new cars. People in China, folks in India, folks in Brazil -- they're going to want cars, too, as their standard of living goes up, and that means more demand for oil, and that's going to kick up the price of oil worldwide. Those numbers are only going to get bigger over time. So what does that mean for us? It means we can't just keep on relying on the old ways of doing business. We can't just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We've got to continually develop new sources of energy.
Every country on the planet has ever-increasing fossil fuel demands, that's just a fact-of-life. Doesn't make sense that the United States become more involved in oil exploration, oil production and oil refining?!? My regime's complete lack of a beneficial domestic energy policy is--by design--forcing the country into the same circumstance as any third-world rathole. Rather than continuing on a "Saul Alinsky-esque" socio-fascist path, logic would tell everyone--excepting those regime 'followers and supporters'--that America needs to be 'in-the-game!!'
Constantly, the regime attempts to convince the naysayers that all these alternative energy sources will be workable subsitutes for fossil fuels. They may replace small percentages of other fossil fuels, but there's no--across-the-board--subsitute for refined oil! Can you imagine a solar-powered or--funnier, yet--a windpowered Boeing jetliner!?! That's unrealistic, whether your name is George Soros or not!! All those countries I mentioned as leaders in increasing their national oil demands and usage?!? Did I tell you that they're also stepping up their oil exploration and production levels?!? Didn't think so!!
And that’s why we've made investments that have nearly doubled the use of clean, renewable energies in this country. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. It also means we’ve got to develop the resources that we have that are untapped, like natural gas. We're developing a near hundred-year supply of natural gas -– and that's something that we expect could support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And that’s why we've worked with the private sector to develop a high-tech car battery that costs half as much as other batteries and can go up to 300 miles on a single charge. Think about that. That will save you some money at the pump. And that is why we are helping companies like this one right here and plants like this one right here to make more cars and trucks that use less oil. When I ran for office, I went to Detroit and I gave a speech to automakers where I promised that I was going to raise fuel standards on our cars, so that they’d go further on a gallon of gas. I said we should do the same thing on trucks. I have to tell you, when I said it, I didn't get a lot of applause in the room, because there was a time when automakers were resisting higher fuel standards -- because change isn't easy. But you know what, after three decades of not doing anything, we got together with the oil companies, we got together with the unions, we got together with folks who usually do not see eye to eye, and we negotiated new fuel economy standards that are going to make sure our cars average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade. That's nearly double what they get today -- nearly double. (Applause.) Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they're going to -- all going to be able to go further and use less fuel every year. And that means pretty soon you’ll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week -– and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about $8,000 a year.
Eight thousand dollars -- that's no joke. We can reduce our oil consumption by more than 12 billion barrels. And thanks to the SuperTruck program that we’ve started with companies like this one, trucks will be able to save more than $15,000 in fuel costs every year. Think about that, $15,000. So these trucks can save $15,000 every year. I want people to think about what that means for businesses, what it means for consumers. It is real progress. And it's happening because of American workers and American know-how. It's happening because of you. It's happening because of you.
It's easy for people like me--who rarely drive; who never fill a gas tank--to demand higher CAFE standards. It's far more difficult to meet those more demanding standards! The increased standards are at the expense of affordable vehicles; the retail costs go up a bit each model year, so the consumer doesn't fully realize the increase-over-time. Safety becomes an issue as well, with more-and-more of said vehicles being 'plastic' and aluminum rather than steel.
....and electric cars.... Don't get me started on electric cars!! They're selling so well that 'owe-bama Motors' is curtailing Chevy Volt for a couple of months so over-zealous inventory can catch-up with dismal demand. Who would want one?!? They barely get TWENTY-FIVE MILES on a charge! There's very few charging stations... anyone wanna get stranded?!? Not to mention the battery fires!! Oh.... and talk about payoffs to my buddies!!
You--of course--know about the $7,500 bribe that benefit Chevy Volt buyers ONLY.
Are you aware that the regime is considering raising the bribe to $10,000 for Chevy Volt buyers ONLY?!?
Are you also aware that the average annual wage of Chevy Volt buyers is $174,000?!? Shouldn't there be a "Buffett Rule" for Chevy Volt buyers?!?We’re also making it easier for big companies -- some of your customers, like UPS and FedEx -- to make the shift to fuel-efficient cars and trucks. We call it the National Clean Fleets Partnership. And since we announced it last year, the number of companies that are taking part in it has tripled. And that means more customers for your trucks. (Applause.) We're creating more customers for your trucks. And I am proud to say that the federal government is leading by example. One thing the federal government has a lot of is cars and trucks. We got a lot of cars and we got a lot of trucks. And so what I did was I directed every department, every agency in the federal government, to make sure that by 2015, 100 percent of the vehicles we buy run on alternative fuels -- 100 percent. (Applause.) So we’re one of the biggest customers in the world for cars and trucks and we want to set that bar high. We want to set a standard that says by 2015, 100 percent of cars, alternative fuels. So we’re making progress, Mount Holly. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how much natural gas, or flex-fuel or electric vehicles you have if there’s no place to charge them up or fill them up. So that’s why I’m announcing today a program that will put our communities on the cutting edge of what clean energy can do. To cities and towns all across the country, what we’re going to say is, if you make a commitment to buy more advanced vehicles for your community -- whether they run on electricity or biofuels or natural gas -- we’ll help you cut through the red tape and build fueling stations nearby. (Applause.) And we’ll offer tax breaks to families that buy these cars, companies that buy alternative fuel trucks like the ones that are made right here at Mount Holly. (Applause.) So we’re going to give communities across the country more of an incentive to make the shift to more energy-efficient cars. In fact, when I was up in New Hampshire, in Nashua, they had already converted all their dump trucks -- they were in a process because of this program -- they were converting it to natural gas-driven trucks. This is something that we did in education -- we called it Race to the Top. We said we’ll put in more money but we want you to reform. We’re going to give you an incentive to do things in a different way. And if we do the same thing with clean energy, we can save consumers money and we can make sure the economy is more secure. So we’ve got to keep investing in American-made energy and we’ve got to keep investing in the vehicles that run on it. That’s where our future is. And in order to continue this progress, we’re going to have to make a choice. We’ve got to decide where our priorities are as a country. And that’s up to all of you. And I’ll give you an example. Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars goes straight to the oil industry every year -- $4 billion in subsidies that other companies don’t get. Now, keep in mind, these are some of the same companies that are making record profits every time you fill up your gas tank. We’re giving them extra billions of dollars on top of near-record profits that they’re already making. Anybody think that’s a good idea? It doesn’t make any sense. The American people have subsidized the oil industry long enough -- they don’t need the subsidies. It’s time to end that taxpayer giveaway to an industry that's never been more profitable, invest in clean energy that's never been more promising. (Applause.) So I called on Congress, eliminate these subsidies right away. There’s no excuse to wait any longer. And we should put every member of Congress on record: They can stand up for the oil companies or they can stand up for the American people and this new energy future. (Applause.) We can place our bets on the fuel of the past, or we can place our bets on American know-how and American ingenuity and American workers like the ones here at Daimler. (Applause.) That’s the choice we face. That’s what’s at stake right now. So, in between shifts, get on the phone or email or send a letter or tweet -- (laughter) -- your member of Congress; ask them where they stand on this -- because it will make a difference. And you’ll know where I stand on this. Let’s make sure our voices are heard. The next time you hear some politician trotting out some 3-point plan for $2 gas -- (laughter) -- you let them know, we know better.
We're forgetting the affects of natural gas-fueled trucks in two segments, the military and the over-the-road trucks. First the military. Military vehicles from staff cars to pickups, to 5-ton trucks to tanks, must be 'multi-fuel (fossil)' engines, meaning that they'll run on practically any liquid the soldier can get into the fuel tank. During those armed conflicts I get the country into, the vehicles can't always make it to the 'gas station.' They have to find fuel--any kind of fuel--any place they can. The military vehicles must be of 'diesel-fired' design. For those who don't know--including me-I was recently told of this--a diesel engine can start and run with no required electricity, with the exception of turning the engine over to start it. Diesel engines fire by the heat developed in the compression stroke of the engine. Natural gas military vehicles are not practical. Natural gas fueling stations are not available on the battlefield!!
The over-the-road trucking fleets are not practical users of natural gas as a fuel either. The fuel tanks aren't compatible with travelling great distances. The expense involved in complying with their CAFE standards have increased the trucks' purchase prices by at least $6,000, to an off-the-rack price in the $90,000-$100,000 range. That's for a 'plain-jane' model with only the necessities aboard. To upgrade to natural gas fuel will add another $10,000-$15,000 to the purchase price. Pretty soon, the largest segment of the transportation industry--the 10-truck-or-fewer company--out of business. When that happens, you'll be pissin' and moanin' that the government do something!!
The only things I have to run for re-immaculation on are the various 'warfares' I use in nearly every blather opportunity. We have to continue the use of class and economic warfares as they relate to the oil industry. We whine-and-bitch about the subsidies Congress sees fit to give to "Big Oil," but without them, retail fuel prices would be even higher than I've driven them thusfar!! Without the $4 Billion in annual oil company subsidies, the prices would be several cents-to-a-dollar higher than they were the last time you got gas!! Many of those in Congress that I suggested you contact; are likely to support the continuation of said subsidies. And rightfully so!! They keep the fuel prices down a bit and any reduction in price is a good thing, whether I can claim credit or not!!
Compaigning on the "Taxpayers's Dime;"
"Clown Prince" Blather from Mount Holly, N.C.
....the Freighterline trucks that you’re making here at this plant run on natural gas, and that makes them quieter, it makes them better for the environment, it makes them cheaper to fill up than they would be with diesel. I hear you sold your 1,000th natural gas truck last November -– (applause) -- the first company to reach that milestone. And it was made right here in Mount Holly. (Applause.) And last year, this plant added more than 1,000 workers, hiring back a lot of folks who were laid off during the recession. (Applause.) That is something to be proud of.
Relative to the trucks you're building here in Mount Holly, my regime has not taken a stance on the on-going 'fracking' controversy in New York and other states where it's not an approved method of natural gas extraction. We plan to let the kerfuffle play out and take the side of 'the winners.'You're building trucks that use less oil. And you know that’s especially important right now because most of you have probably filled up your gas tank a time or two in the last week, and you've seen how quickly the price of gas is going up. A lot of you may have to drive a distance to work. Higher gas prices are like a tax straight out of your paycheck. And for companies that operate a whole fleet of trucks, the higher costs can make a big difference in terms of the profitability of the company. Now, here's the thing, though -- this is not the first time we've seen gas prices spike. It's been happening for years. Every year, about this time, gas starts spiking up, and everybody starts wondering, how high is it going to go? And every year, politicians start talking when gas prices go up. They get out on the campaign trail -- and you and I both know there are no quick fixes to this problem -- but listening to them, you'd think there were. As a country that has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world's oil -- I'm going to repeat that -- we've got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we're doing to increase oil production, we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth.
My blather about today's fuel price increases is only a partial lie. Oil prices--and by extension, the retail fuel prices--are cyclical in nature; driven by both demand and production. What I leave out of every 'energy' blather event is that the national retail fuel price average has doubled--actually gone up about 105%--since my immaculation, and still climbing!!
Those oil statistics I quote are complete obfuscations of the actual facts as well as the listeners' perceptions of their meaning. I take advantage of the public ignorance as to the definitions of various numbers I quote. When I speak of '2 percent of the world oil reserves....' I actually mean 2% of the worldwide amount of oil actually extracted, NOT 2% of the world's DISCOVERED oil reserves. If what I say were actually true, wouldn't it stand to reason that we'd have to import 98% of our annual oil usage?!?
"We're not going to be able to just drill out way out of the problem of high gas prices."
I like to make that statement in my campaign speeches. Most attend my blather opportunities due to my notoriety, not because they believe--or agree with--my message. Look at the production problem logically: From application to the first production well, the drilling process is several years long. From that perspective, we'd have lower gas prices today if only that evil George W. Bush would have approved more drilling permits. It's all his fault, I'm just following his lead!! If the country will always have high fuel prices relative to the number of producing wells; why drill at all?!? Why not just import 100% of our oil needs?!? One of the most contradictory actions to come along since my immaculation has been the KeyStone XL pipeline. It has nothing to do with oil exploration, with oil drilling, with oil production; it's only involved with the transportation of crude oil from Canada to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. And yet, I refused to approve it even though the various federal departments could find no area in which the pipeling was not in compliance!!Here is the truth. If we are going to control our energy future, then we’ve got to have an all-of-the-above strategy. We’ve got to develop every source of American energy -- not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels. We need to invest in the technology that will help us use less oil in our cars and our trucks, in our buildings, in our factories. That’s the only solution to the challenge. Because as we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down. It's pretty straightforward. That’s the only solution to this challenge. And that’s the strategy that we’ve now been pursuing for the last three years. And I’m proud to say we’ve made progress. Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year. In fact, in 2010, it went under 50 percent for the first time in 13 years. You wouldn’t know it from listening to some of these folks out here -- (laughter) -- some of these folks -- (laughter) -- but a key part of our energy strategy has been to increase safe, responsible oil production here at home. Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than any time in the last eight years. Under my administration, we’ve quadrupled the number of operating oilrigs to a record high. We’ve got more oilrigs operating now than we’ve ever seen. We’ve opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. We’ve approved more than 400 drilling permits that follow new safety standards after we had that mess down in the Gulf. We’re approving dozens of new pipelines. We just announced that we’ll do whatever we can to speed up construction of a pipeline in Oklahoma that’s going to relieve a bottleneck and get more oil to the Gulf -- to the refineries down there -- and that’s going to help create jobs, encourage more production. So these are the facts on oil production. If somebody tells you we’re not producing enough oil, they just don’t know the facts.
The 'development' I speak of should be true development, not a method of reward! How much actual development was financed by federal pork paid to Solyndra?!? I contend, very little! And, Solyndra was but one of those we financed that filed for bankruptcy a few short months--in some cases, just weeks--after accepting the federal 'checks.' In all cases, the corporate hierarchies involved were paid--and even received substantial bonuses--as many thousands were laid off--in some cases--with unfulfilled final paychecks. Many contend--and in most cases, it's proven out--that these federal alternative energy SCAMS are little more than rewards to the regime's donors, supporters and campaign workers.
But how much oil we produce here at home, because we only have 2 percent and we use 20, that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide, or here in the United States. Oil is bought and sold on the world market. And the biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East. You guys have been hearing about what’s happening with Iran; there are other oil producers that are having problems. And so people have gotten uncertain. And when uncertainty increases, then sometimes you see speculation on Wall Street that drives up gas prices even more. But here's the thing. Over the long term, the biggest reason oil prices will go up is there's just growing demand in countries like China and India and Brazil. There are a lot of people there. In 2010 alone, China added nearly 10 million cars on its roads. Think about that -- 2010, 10 million new cars. People in China, folks in India, folks in Brazil -- they're going to want cars, too, as their standard of living goes up, and that means more demand for oil, and that's going to kick up the price of oil worldwide. Those numbers are only going to get bigger over time. So what does that mean for us? It means we can't just keep on relying on the old ways of doing business. We can't just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We've got to continually develop new sources of energy.
Every country on the planet has ever-increasing fossil fuel demands, that's just a fact-of-life. Doesn't make sense that the United States become more involved in oil exploration, oil production and oil refining?!? My regime's complete lack of a beneficial domestic energy policy is--by design--forcing the country into the same circumstance as any third-world rathole. Rather than continuing on a "Saul Alinsky-esque" socio-fascist path, logic would tell everyone--excepting those regime 'followers and supporters'--that America needs to be 'in-the-game!!'
Constantly, the regime attempts to convince the naysayers that all these alternative energy sources will be workable subsitutes for fossil fuels. They may replace small percentages of other fossil fuels, but there's no--across-the-board--subsitute for refined oil! Can you imagine a solar-powered or--funnier, yet--a windpowered Boeing jetliner!?! That's unrealistic, whether your name is George Soros or not!! All those countries I mentioned as leaders in increasing their national oil demands and usage?!? Did I tell you that they're also stepping up their oil exploration and production levels?!? Didn't think so!!
And that’s why we've made investments that have nearly doubled the use of clean, renewable energies in this country. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. It also means we’ve got to develop the resources that we have that are untapped, like natural gas. We're developing a near hundred-year supply of natural gas -– and that's something that we expect could support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And that’s why we've worked with the private sector to develop a high-tech car battery that costs half as much as other batteries and can go up to 300 miles on a single charge. Think about that. That will save you some money at the pump. And that is why we are helping companies like this one right here and plants like this one right here to make more cars and trucks that use less oil. When I ran for office, I went to Detroit and I gave a speech to automakers where I promised that I was going to raise fuel standards on our cars, so that they’d go further on a gallon of gas. I said we should do the same thing on trucks. I have to tell you, when I said it, I didn't get a lot of applause in the room, because there was a time when automakers were resisting higher fuel standards -- because change isn't easy. But you know what, after three decades of not doing anything, we got together with the oil companies, we got together with the unions, we got together with folks who usually do not see eye to eye, and we negotiated new fuel economy standards that are going to make sure our cars average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade. That's nearly double what they get today -- nearly double. (Applause.) Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they're going to -- all going to be able to go further and use less fuel every year. And that means pretty soon you’ll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week -– and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about $8,000 a year.
Eight thousand dollars -- that's no joke. We can reduce our oil consumption by more than 12 billion barrels. And thanks to the SuperTruck program that we’ve started with companies like this one, trucks will be able to save more than $15,000 in fuel costs every year. Think about that, $15,000. So these trucks can save $15,000 every year. I want people to think about what that means for businesses, what it means for consumers. It is real progress. And it's happening because of American workers and American know-how. It's happening because of you. It's happening because of you.
It's easy for people like me--who rarely drive; who never fill a gas tank--to demand higher CAFE standards. It's far more difficult to meet those more demanding standards! The increased standards are at the expense of affordable vehicles; the retail costs go up a bit each model year, so the consumer doesn't fully realize the increase-over-time. Safety becomes an issue as well, with more-and-more of said vehicles being 'plastic' and aluminum rather than steel.
....and electric cars.... Don't get me started on electric cars!! They're selling so well that 'owe-bama Motors' is curtailing Chevy Volt for a couple of months so over-zealous inventory can catch-up with dismal demand. Who would want one?!? They barely get TWENTY-FIVE MILES on a charge! There's very few charging stations... anyone wanna get stranded?!? Not to mention the battery fires!! Oh.... and talk about payoffs to my buddies!!
You--of course--know about the $7,500 bribe that benefit Chevy Volt buyers ONLY.
Are you aware that the regime is considering raising the bribe to $10,000 for Chevy Volt buyers ONLY?!?
Are you also aware that the average annual wage of Chevy Volt buyers is $174,000?!? Shouldn't there be a "Buffett Rule" for Chevy Volt buyers?!?We’re also making it easier for big companies -- some of your customers, like UPS and FedEx -- to make the shift to fuel-efficient cars and trucks. We call it the National Clean Fleets Partnership. And since we announced it last year, the number of companies that are taking part in it has tripled. And that means more customers for your trucks. (Applause.) We're creating more customers for your trucks. And I am proud to say that the federal government is leading by example. One thing the federal government has a lot of is cars and trucks. We got a lot of cars and we got a lot of trucks. And so what I did was I directed every department, every agency in the federal government, to make sure that by 2015, 100 percent of the vehicles we buy run on alternative fuels -- 100 percent. (Applause.) So we’re one of the biggest customers in the world for cars and trucks and we want to set that bar high. We want to set a standard that says by 2015, 100 percent of cars, alternative fuels. So we’re making progress, Mount Holly. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how much natural gas, or flex-fuel or electric vehicles you have if there’s no place to charge them up or fill them up. So that’s why I’m announcing today a program that will put our communities on the cutting edge of what clean energy can do. To cities and towns all across the country, what we’re going to say is, if you make a commitment to buy more advanced vehicles for your community -- whether they run on electricity or biofuels or natural gas -- we’ll help you cut through the red tape and build fueling stations nearby. (Applause.) And we’ll offer tax breaks to families that buy these cars, companies that buy alternative fuel trucks like the ones that are made right here at Mount Holly. (Applause.) So we’re going to give communities across the country more of an incentive to make the shift to more energy-efficient cars. In fact, when I was up in New Hampshire, in Nashua, they had already converted all their dump trucks -- they were in a process because of this program -- they were converting it to natural gas-driven trucks. This is something that we did in education -- we called it Race to the Top. We said we’ll put in more money but we want you to reform. We’re going to give you an incentive to do things in a different way. And if we do the same thing with clean energy, we can save consumers money and we can make sure the economy is more secure. So we’ve got to keep investing in American-made energy and we’ve got to keep investing in the vehicles that run on it. That’s where our future is. And in order to continue this progress, we’re going to have to make a choice. We’ve got to decide where our priorities are as a country. And that’s up to all of you. And I’ll give you an example. Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars goes straight to the oil industry every year -- $4 billion in subsidies that other companies don’t get. Now, keep in mind, these are some of the same companies that are making record profits every time you fill up your gas tank. We’re giving them extra billions of dollars on top of near-record profits that they’re already making. Anybody think that’s a good idea? It doesn’t make any sense. The American people have subsidized the oil industry long enough -- they don’t need the subsidies. It’s time to end that taxpayer giveaway to an industry that's never been more profitable, invest in clean energy that's never been more promising. (Applause.) So I called on Congress, eliminate these subsidies right away. There’s no excuse to wait any longer. And we should put every member of Congress on record: They can stand up for the oil companies or they can stand up for the American people and this new energy future. (Applause.) We can place our bets on the fuel of the past, or we can place our bets on American know-how and American ingenuity and American workers like the ones here at Daimler. (Applause.) That’s the choice we face. That’s what’s at stake right now. So, in between shifts, get on the phone or email or send a letter or tweet -- (laughter) -- your member of Congress; ask them where they stand on this -- because it will make a difference. And you’ll know where I stand on this. Let’s make sure our voices are heard. The next time you hear some politician trotting out some 3-point plan for $2 gas -- (laughter) -- you let them know, we know better.
We're forgetting the affects of natural gas-fueled trucks in two segments, the military and the over-the-road trucks. First the military. Military vehicles from staff cars to pickups, to 5-ton trucks to tanks, must be 'multi-fuel (fossil)' engines, meaning that they'll run on practically any liquid the soldier can get into the fuel tank. During those armed conflicts I get the country into, the vehicles can't always make it to the 'gas station.' They have to find fuel--any kind of fuel--any place they can. The military vehicles must be of 'diesel-fired' design. For those who don't know--including me-I was recently told of this--a diesel engine can start and run with no required electricity, with the exception of turning the engine over to start it. Diesel engines fire by the heat developed in the compression stroke of the engine. Natural gas military vehicles are not practical. Natural gas fueling stations are not available on the battlefield!!
The over-the-road trucking fleets are not practical users of natural gas as a fuel either. The fuel tanks aren't compatible with travelling great distances. The expense involved in complying with their CAFE standards have increased the trucks' purchase prices by at least $6,000, to an off-the-rack price in the $90,000-$100,000 range. That's for a 'plain-jane' model with only the necessities aboard. To upgrade to natural gas fuel will add another $10,000-$15,000 to the purchase price. Pretty soon, the largest segment of the transportation industry--the 10-truck-or-fewer company--out of business. When that happens, you'll be pissin' and moanin' that the government do something!!
The only things I have to run for re-immaculation on are the various 'warfares' I use in nearly every blather opportunity. We have to continue the use of class and economic warfares as they relate to the oil industry. We whine-and-bitch about the subsidies Congress sees fit to give to "Big Oil," but without them, retail fuel prices would be even higher than I've driven them thusfar!! Without the $4 Billion in annual oil company subsidies, the prices would be several cents-to-a-dollar higher than they were the last time you got gas!! Many of those in Congress that I suggested you contact; are likely to support the continuation of said subsidies. And rightfully so!! They keep the fuel prices down a bit and any reduction in price is a good thing, whether I can claim credit or not!!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
"Clown Prince" Weekly Blather; February 25th
A Patriotic Response To The "Clown Prince;" 02/25/2012
barackingham Palace,
District of Corruption
February 25, 2012
In the State of the Union, I laid out three areas we need to focus on if we’re going to build an economy that lasts: new American manufacturing, new skills and education for American workers, and new sources of American-made energy. These days, we’re getting another painful reminder why developing new energy is so important to our future. Just like they did last year, gas prices are starting to climb. Only this time, it’s happening earlier. And that hurts everyone – everyone who owns a car; everyone who owns a business. It means you have to stretch your paycheck even further. Some folks have no choice but to drive a long way to work, and high gas prices are like a tax straight out of their paychecks. Now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity. And since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We hear the same thing every year. Well the American people aren’t stupid. You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling. It’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.
[What I'm not telling you: My three points here aren't nearly as important as those three points I demagogue later in this blather opportunity. For the past three-plus years, I've been touting the return of American manufacturing jobs; the plain truth is that the American companies involved can't profit from bringing the aforementioned jobs back on-shore. The federal--read: owe-bamacRATic; socio-fascist--tax policies coupled with the ineffciencies of a union-controlled labor force make any reasonable profits impossible.
The fossil fuels are the tried-and-true energy sources that have sustained the American manufacturing and business 'engines' for the past three centuries! Every American president since the mid-nineteenth century has had a viable, workable federal energy policy. Those policies centered primarily on the availability of inexpensive fossil fuels. Since my immaculation, the federal energy policy has been "higher retail prices will curtail demand!" Lest we forget my rewards for my supporters, donors, my voter blocks, an important part of the regime's energy policy is to subsidize those 'green-turned-black' energy companies, even though we knew they would file for bankruptcy within weeks of said subsidies. This allowed investors in companies like SOLYNDRA to reap untold profits prior to the various-and-several companies' collapse at the expense of the American taxpayer! Remember that ever-famous statement I made during the last "Campaign of Fluff?"
"Under my plan of a 'Cap and Trade' system, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket."
...or how 'bout this one:
"So, if anyone wants to build a coal [-fired power] plant, they can.... it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they will be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Now, I ask you: Is this a viable, workable federal energy plan, or is it just more vindictiveness predicated upon the huge 'chip' on my shoulder?!? 'You be the judge!!']
You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we’re going to take control of our energy future and avoid these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. We need to keep developing the technology that allows us to use less oil in our cars and trucks; in our buildings and plants. That’s the strategy we’re pursuing, and that’s the only real solution to this challenge. Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America. That’s why under my Administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. In 2010, our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in more than a decade. And while there are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices, I’ve directed my administration to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, from permitting to delivery bottlenecks to what’s going on in the oil markets. But over the long term, an all-of-the-above energy strategy means we have to do more. It means we have to make some choices. Here’s one example. Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars. Imagine that. Maybe some of you are listening to this in your car right now, pulling into a gas station to fill up. As you watch those numbers rise, know that oil company profits have never been higher. Yet somehow, Congress is still giving those same companies another four billion dollars of your money. That’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And it has to stop.
[What I'm not telling you: Now on to the 'drilling' argument: Had George Soros and I not thought placating the environmentalists was 'the way to go,' we--and by 'we' I mean Soros--could have developed an energy exploration, development and production plan which very well may have taken the United States out from under the 'OPEC thumb.' We--and by 'we' I mean Soros--didn't; we--and by 'we' I mean the American consumer--now have to suffer with energy prices that seem to rise by-the-minute!
All the aforementioned 'alternative energy sources' have shown to be unsustainable without massive federal subsidies. Much like me purchasing General Motors with taxpayer money, the subsidies to 'green-turned-black' energy companies do little more than prop up poor managements, unworkable business models. Let's go back to the mid-19th century I spoke of earlier: Did Henry Ford get massive federal subsidies to develop his Model T, the most successful automobile in history?!? Did George Eastman get massive federal subsidies to develop materials that evolved into the Eastman-Kodak Company?!? Did that 'Wizard of Menlo Park,' Thomas Edison get massive federal subsidies to 'light-the-world?!?' ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Each of these businesses had to 'stand-or-fall' on their individual viability.
That "...under my administration...." ditty? That's is--and was designed to be--quite misleading!! The real truth--which you'll never see admitted to anywhere else--is that most of the drilling permits in force today, are the product of that evil George W. Bush!! My regime has approved precious few new drilling permits; part of a continuing effort to force the American economy to accept alternative energy sources. The regime's 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy is quite similar to "throwing gobs-of-shit at the barn wall, hoping at least some will stick!!"
All the new drilling permits; the removal of delivery 'bottlenecks;' trying to second-guess foreign energy markets, doesn't mean 'squat' in the whole scheme-of-things. The EPA-in it's infinite wisdom--has regulated new refining facilities practically out-of-existence. The energy companies are forced to spend untold billions-of-dollars just to prepare for the EPA and Department of Energy permitting processes! Most older refineries on the Gulf Coast are only equipped to refine 'Brent Sweet' crude oil while refineries in the mid-west are capable of processing 'West Texas Intermediate' crude. Very few refineries have been upgraded to process "later-generation" variations of crude oil. No matter who says what: the onus is on the owe-bama Regime for this kerfuffle!!]
A century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough. It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, and use that money to reduce our deficit and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Because of the investments we’ve already made, the use of wind and solar energy in this country has nearly doubled – and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. And because we put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade – something that, over time, will save the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump. Now Congress needs to keep that momentum going by renewing the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil. Look, we know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight. But what we can do is get our priorities straight, and make a sustained, serious effort to tackle this problem. That’s the commitment we need right now. And with your help, it’s a commitment we can make.
[What I'm not telling you: Certainly, there are subsidies to the oil companies! Certainly, it's money that might be better-spent elsewhere! A secondary affect of oil company subsidies is lower retail product prices. We could end said subsidies, but at what cost; at what pain-level to the American consumer?!?
"....double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising...."
Who--exactly--believes that bullshit?!? As I mentioned previously, the green-turned-black energy sector exists primarily for the regime to transfer taxpayer 'wealth' to owe-bamacRATic and owe-bama campaign supporters, seemingly without the ruler's "fingerprints" on the transfers!! Why is 'doubling-down' be any more productive, profitable than the previous 'singling-down' by the owe-bama regime that came just days and weeks prior to the seveal companies' bankruptcy filings?!? The several energy alternatives are currently unsustainable and thus will currently cost the American taxpayer far more than they'll ever realize. Let the alternatives live-and-die by consumer demand, product viability, much like the aforemention industrial titans!! Wake up, America!! The owe-bama regime--and by that I mean SOROS--will continue to circumvent the United States Constitution; circumvent all logic, until the Congress steps in to force us to stop. And--rest assured--we WILL NOT stop until forced to do so!! Soros does admit--by the way--these price issues, these production issues and these tax issues are a direct aid to the owe-bama class-warfare strategy!!]
barackingham Palace,
District of Corruption
February 25, 2012
In the State of the Union, I laid out three areas we need to focus on if we’re going to build an economy that lasts: new American manufacturing, new skills and education for American workers, and new sources of American-made energy. These days, we’re getting another painful reminder why developing new energy is so important to our future. Just like they did last year, gas prices are starting to climb. Only this time, it’s happening earlier. And that hurts everyone – everyone who owns a car; everyone who owns a business. It means you have to stretch your paycheck even further. Some folks have no choice but to drive a long way to work, and high gas prices are like a tax straight out of their paychecks. Now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity. And since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We hear the same thing every year. Well the American people aren’t stupid. You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling. It’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.
[What I'm not telling you: My three points here aren't nearly as important as those three points I demagogue later in this blather opportunity. For the past three-plus years, I've been touting the return of American manufacturing jobs; the plain truth is that the American companies involved can't profit from bringing the aforementioned jobs back on-shore. The federal--read: owe-bamacRATic; socio-fascist--tax policies coupled with the ineffciencies of a union-controlled labor force make any reasonable profits impossible.
The fossil fuels are the tried-and-true energy sources that have sustained the American manufacturing and business 'engines' for the past three centuries! Every American president since the mid-nineteenth century has had a viable, workable federal energy policy. Those policies centered primarily on the availability of inexpensive fossil fuels. Since my immaculation, the federal energy policy has been "higher retail prices will curtail demand!" Lest we forget my rewards for my supporters, donors, my voter blocks, an important part of the regime's energy policy is to subsidize those 'green-turned-black' energy companies, even though we knew they would file for bankruptcy within weeks of said subsidies. This allowed investors in companies like SOLYNDRA to reap untold profits prior to the various-and-several companies' collapse at the expense of the American taxpayer! Remember that ever-famous statement I made during the last "Campaign of Fluff?"
"Under my plan of a 'Cap and Trade' system, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket."
...or how 'bout this one:
"So, if anyone wants to build a coal [-fired power] plant, they can.... it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they will be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Now, I ask you: Is this a viable, workable federal energy plan, or is it just more vindictiveness predicated upon the huge 'chip' on my shoulder?!? 'You be the judge!!']
You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we’re going to take control of our energy future and avoid these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. We need to keep developing the technology that allows us to use less oil in our cars and trucks; in our buildings and plants. That’s the strategy we’re pursuing, and that’s the only real solution to this challenge. Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America. That’s why under my Administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. In 2010, our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in more than a decade. And while there are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices, I’ve directed my administration to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, from permitting to delivery bottlenecks to what’s going on in the oil markets. But over the long term, an all-of-the-above energy strategy means we have to do more. It means we have to make some choices. Here’s one example. Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars. Imagine that. Maybe some of you are listening to this in your car right now, pulling into a gas station to fill up. As you watch those numbers rise, know that oil company profits have never been higher. Yet somehow, Congress is still giving those same companies another four billion dollars of your money. That’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And it has to stop.
[What I'm not telling you: Now on to the 'drilling' argument: Had George Soros and I not thought placating the environmentalists was 'the way to go,' we--and by 'we' I mean Soros--could have developed an energy exploration, development and production plan which very well may have taken the United States out from under the 'OPEC thumb.' We--and by 'we' I mean Soros--didn't; we--and by 'we' I mean the American consumer--now have to suffer with energy prices that seem to rise by-the-minute!
All the aforementioned 'alternative energy sources' have shown to be unsustainable without massive federal subsidies. Much like me purchasing General Motors with taxpayer money, the subsidies to 'green-turned-black' energy companies do little more than prop up poor managements, unworkable business models. Let's go back to the mid-19th century I spoke of earlier: Did Henry Ford get massive federal subsidies to develop his Model T, the most successful automobile in history?!? Did George Eastman get massive federal subsidies to develop materials that evolved into the Eastman-Kodak Company?!? Did that 'Wizard of Menlo Park,' Thomas Edison get massive federal subsidies to 'light-the-world?!?' ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Each of these businesses had to 'stand-or-fall' on their individual viability.
That "...under my administration...." ditty? That's is--and was designed to be--quite misleading!! The real truth--which you'll never see admitted to anywhere else--is that most of the drilling permits in force today, are the product of that evil George W. Bush!! My regime has approved precious few new drilling permits; part of a continuing effort to force the American economy to accept alternative energy sources. The regime's 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy is quite similar to "throwing gobs-of-shit at the barn wall, hoping at least some will stick!!"
All the new drilling permits; the removal of delivery 'bottlenecks;' trying to second-guess foreign energy markets, doesn't mean 'squat' in the whole scheme-of-things. The EPA-in it's infinite wisdom--has regulated new refining facilities practically out-of-existence. The energy companies are forced to spend untold billions-of-dollars just to prepare for the EPA and Department of Energy permitting processes! Most older refineries on the Gulf Coast are only equipped to refine 'Brent Sweet' crude oil while refineries in the mid-west are capable of processing 'West Texas Intermediate' crude. Very few refineries have been upgraded to process "later-generation" variations of crude oil. No matter who says what: the onus is on the owe-bama Regime for this kerfuffle!!]
A century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough. It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, and use that money to reduce our deficit and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Because of the investments we’ve already made, the use of wind and solar energy in this country has nearly doubled – and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. And because we put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade – something that, over time, will save the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump. Now Congress needs to keep that momentum going by renewing the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil. Look, we know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight. But what we can do is get our priorities straight, and make a sustained, serious effort to tackle this problem. That’s the commitment we need right now. And with your help, it’s a commitment we can make.
[What I'm not telling you: Certainly, there are subsidies to the oil companies! Certainly, it's money that might be better-spent elsewhere! A secondary affect of oil company subsidies is lower retail product prices. We could end said subsidies, but at what cost; at what pain-level to the American consumer?!?
"....double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising...."
Who--exactly--believes that bullshit?!? As I mentioned previously, the green-turned-black energy sector exists primarily for the regime to transfer taxpayer 'wealth' to owe-bamacRATic and owe-bama campaign supporters, seemingly without the ruler's "fingerprints" on the transfers!! Why is 'doubling-down' be any more productive, profitable than the previous 'singling-down' by the owe-bama regime that came just days and weeks prior to the seveal companies' bankruptcy filings?!? The several energy alternatives are currently unsustainable and thus will currently cost the American taxpayer far more than they'll ever realize. Let the alternatives live-and-die by consumer demand, product viability, much like the aforemention industrial titans!! Wake up, America!! The owe-bama regime--and by that I mean SOROS--will continue to circumvent the United States Constitution; circumvent all logic, until the Congress steps in to force us to stop. And--rest assured--we WILL NOT stop until forced to do so!! Soros does admit--by the way--these price issues, these production issues and these tax issues are a direct aid to the owe-bama class-warfare strategy!!]
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The Sunday 'Report;' 12/11/2011
What The National Pamphleteers Don't Report:
Obama's 'Tax Cut' Just One Item in a Holiday Spending Spree
by Brian H. Darling
Humanevents.com
December 5, 2011
The Obama class warfare campaign is in high gear.
There are many must-pass bills for Congress to consider before year’s end, giving President Obama leverage to promote his class-warfare agenda. The President has demanded that Congress continue and expand his payroll tax cut. His stimulus bill contained a 2% cut of the 6.2% Social Security tax rate, and to offset the loss of revenue, Obama would impose a 3.25% surtax on Americans making more than $1 million a year. The Obama “tax cut” would actually not reduce the tax burden by one cent. The Obama tax cut isn’t pro-growth for two reasons: It’s not a permanent or a net reduction in taxes. It’s merely another campaign ploy by President Obama to attack the wallets of upper-middle class and wealthy Americans.
Getting Paid Not to Work
Another issue being debated is an extension of unemployment benefits. By Dec. 31, benefits for the long-term unemployed who receive 99 weeks of income support will run out. Most expect a bill to pass to pay individuals not to work. Liberals don’t want to cut spending elsewhere to pay for an extension of these benefits. They even argued that this costly program should have been part of the Super Committee deal to reduce the deficit. They want this passed, and they don’t care about the cost to the taxpayers. Liberals argue that the extension of unemployment benefits provides a stimulus to the economy. James Sherk and Karen Campbell of The Heritage Foundation produced [....]
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&id=47935
13 Cities Where Home Prices Are Falling Dangerously
by Morgan Brennan
Forbes.com
December 8, 2011
(1 of 15-photos/text)
Cities Where Home Prices Are Falling Dangerously The folks at Local Market Monitor compiled a list of the 13 cities that suffered relatively big home price hits this year with more projected through the next 12 months. LMM sifted through market data for more than 300 [....]
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45gihj/cities-where-home-prices-are-falling-dangerously
Fact Checking the Iowa Debate
by ABC News
December 10, 2011Fact Check 1 - We’ll lose 1.6 million jobs over five years under the affordable healthcare act.
Fact Check 2 - Newt Gingrich would build a colony on the moon.
Fact Check 3 - Payroll tax cut: band-aid, gimmick or something else all together?
Fact Check 4 – Romney’s record on the Affordable Care Act.
Fact Check 5 – HPV vaccine vs. Romney’s health care plan.
Fact Check 6 – Palestinians as an “invented” people?
Fact or Fiction Number 1 - We’ll lose 1.6 million jobs over five years under the affordable healthcare act.
ABC News’ Amy Bingham reports:
GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann came out swinging at the ABC News Iowa debate Saturday night, but rather than taking a jab at her comrades on stage, the Minnesota congresswoman directed her ire at President Obama.
In her first answer of the evening Bachmann blasted the president’s health care legislation, saying the Affordable Care Act would kill 1.6 million jobs.
“We can cut government bureaucracy, which is Obamacare,” Bachmann said. “N.F.I.B. tells us, that’s the small [....]
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/fact-checking-the-debate-in-iowa/
Providing In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens: A Violation of Federal Law
by Hans von Spakovsky
Charles Stimson
November 22, 2011
Federal law prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State”—unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States. Today, 12 states are circumventing this federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense. Because at least one federal court of appeals has held that there is no private right of action under the specific statute in question—§ 1623 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996—the U.S. Department of Justice must enforce this statutory provision against states that have violated federal law. Yet even as it sues states like Arizona and Alabama for trying to assist the enforcement of federal immigration law, the U.S. government refuses to sue states that are incontrovertibly and brazenly violating an unambiguous federal immigration law. Such inaction is unacceptable: The President and the Attorney General have an obligation to enforce every provision of the United State’s comprehensive federal immigration regulations—including the federal law prohibiting state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State.”
In 1996, Congress passed—and President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).[i] Section 1623 of this federal statute prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State” unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States.[ii] Today, 12 states[iii] allow individuals who are in the United States illegally to pay the same in-state tuition rates as legal residents of the states[iv]—without providing the same rates to others. By circumventing the requirements of § 1623 these states are violating federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense.
A Nation of Laws, Not of Men
The United States is a country of immigrants—men and women who sought opportunity and freedom in an exceptional new land. Americans take pride in their heritage and this country’s generous policies regarding legal immigration. Yet, as citizens of a sovereign nation, Americans retain the right to decide who can and cannot enter this country—and what terms immigrants and visitors must accept as a condition of residing in the United States. As mandated [....]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/providing-in-state-tuition-for-illegal-aliens-a-violation-of-federal-law?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
The Covert Intelligence War Against Iran
by Scott Stewart,
STRATFOR.com
December 8, 2011
There has been a lot of talk in the press lately about a “cold war” being waged by the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies against Iran. Such a struggle is certainly taking place, but in order to place recent developments in perspective, it is important to recognize that the covert intelligence war against Iran (and the Iranian response to this war) is clearly not a new phenomenon. Indeed, STRATFOR has been chronicling this struggle since early 2007. Our coverage has included analyses of events such as the defection to the West of Iranian officials with knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear program; the Iranian seizure of British servicemen in the Shatt al Arab Waterway; the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists; the use of the Stuxnet worm to cripple Iranian uranium enrichment efforts; and Iranian efforts to arm its proxies and use them as a threat to counteract Western pressure. These proxies are most visible in Iraq and Lebanon, but they also exist in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
While the covert intelligence war has been under way for many years, the tempo of events that can readily be identified as part of it has been increasing over the past few months. It is important to note that many of these events are the result of hidden processes begun months or even years previously, so while visible events may indeed be increasing, the efforts responsible for many of them began to increase much earlier. What the activities of recent months do tell us is that the covert war between Iran and its enemies will not be [....]
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111207-covert-intelligence-war-against-iran?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=111208&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=dbd767cda712466b91d2fa37ca513b89
Interest soars in US peer-to-peer lending
By Matt Kennard and Shannon Bond
Financial Times
November 24, 2011
When Greg Dawson wanted to start his own photography business after graduating from college in 2003, he knew he needed money for expensive equipment and marketing materials to spread the word. He walked into his local Bank of America branch, asked for a small business loan – and was rejected.
“I was just starting out in my career, with college debt and no assets,” he said. “They just laughed at me.”
A Google search, however, led him to Prosper, the pioneer of the peer-to-peer lending sector. P2P lending connects borrowers with lenders, with P2P companies taking a percentage from both sides of the transaction. In the wake of the financial crisis, bank lending remains depressed even as hints of confidence have begun to return, and people are [....]
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2345e94a-0bb1-11e1-9a61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gE7HmsUq
[Invisible Senator] Gillibrand’s faux fix
Loophole-ridden ethics ‘reform’
by Michael A. Walsh
New York Post
December 1, 2011
‘Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day . . . there’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”
That was Tammany Hall leader George Washington Plunkitt, explaining back at the turn of the last century how it was that so many political leaders had become wealthy in “public service.” But today’s pols make the old corrupt Democratic Party machine that ruled New York City for nearly a century look like pikers.
Pelosi’s pal: Kirsten Gillibrand’s bill wouldn’t do enough to end congressional insider trading.
Take the disclosures two weeks ago on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that Congress is effectively exempt from insider-trading laws, and that members routinely act on nonpublic financial information that they acquire while doing the “people’s business” to boost their personal-investment portfolios. Reporter Steve Kroft grilled former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her uncanny trading ability: “I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO [initial public offering] deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit-card companies making its way through the House.”
Coincidentally, Pelosi’s net worth leaped 62 percent last year, to at least $35.2 million, attributed in news reports to “stock gains and smart investments.”
She’s not alone. Even in a down economy, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Major Leader Harry Reid and many others in Congress also saw handsome net-worth increases. In fact, some 245 of the 535 Congress members are millionaires, putting them squarely in the “one percent” that the Occupy Wall Street rabble is allegedly protesting.
Yet Pelosi could only sputter in reply: “I don’t know what your point is of your question.”
She may be the only one who can’t figure it out. Americans are finally waking up to the fact that we are ruled by oligarchs, many of whom entered Congress as folks of modest means and leave as millionaires and billionaires.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the estimated median net worth of a US senator now stands at $2.56 million — a remarkable feat considering that congressional base pay is $174,000 a year. In addition to Social Security, members also get a generous retirement plan and health-care benefits, as well as an annual automatic cost-of-living increase — unless they vote not to accept it. On top of all that, they get pensions that start at 80 percent of a qualifying member’s final salary. No wonder they spend so much money to win office and fight so hard to stay there. Still, with public satisfaction with Congress at near-record lows, the stench is getting hard to ignore. Which is why Congress is pretending to do something about its appalling ethical problems. In the wake of the “60 Minutes” report, the House Ethics Committee issued a toothless warning against the use of nonpublic information to line members’ personal coffers, and two senators introduced legislation to stop congressional insider trading.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced his STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which would prohibit Pelosi-like shenanigans by Congress members and executive-branch officials. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) followed him with her own version [....]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gillibrand_faux_fix_Gx4rwe8yWJtLdujpaR9GpL
JPMorgan Says Top European Stocks May Soar 84%
JPMorgan (JPM) expects European countries to get their house in order, boosting some shares by as much as 84% in the next 12 months.
Contributed by Thestreet.com
Forbes,
December 7, 2011 The U.S. investment bank identifies the shares of 30 companies in various industries that are worth buying heading into 2012. Most of the top picks are diversified across countries, though there’s a concentration in France and Germany, the most stable in the eurozone. A portfolio of JPMorgan’s top European picks for 2011 would have declined by 11% so far this year, compared with the benchmark Stoxx Europe 600 Index’s 12% drop. EADS, a Dutch aerospace and defense company, was the best-performing pick this year, up 25%. Carmaker PSA Peugeot Citroen was the firm’s worst selection, down 50%.
Monday was a big day for Europe. France and Germany told the European Union that they must decide if they will accept greater central control over their national budgets. Then Standard & Poor’s said it may cut Germany’s and France’s AAA credit ratings as the agency put 15 euro nations on review for a possible downgrade. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is currently on a three-day trip to Europe to push European leaders to commit [....]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thestreet/2011/12/07/jpmorgan-says-top-european-stocks-may-soar-84/
Rankings: Coughlin, Garrett on shaky ground
by Michael Silver,
Yahoo! Sports
December 7, 2011
It’s a battle for first place in the NFC East – with, potentially, one bummer of a booby prize.
For coaches Tom Coughlin and Jason Garrett, a defeat on Sunday night at Cowboys Stadium could be a hard shove toward the unemployment line. With Coughlin’s Giants (6-6) already reeling from a four-game losing streak and Garrett’s Cowboys coming off a brutal overtime defeat to the Cardinals that can be easily traced to the coach’s clock mismanagement, the specter of an ignominious collapse looms for the loser.
Heightening the drama is the perception that a pair of big-name coaches are hovering in the shadows as prospective replacements. There has long been a sense that Bill Cowher, who coached the Steelers to a pair of Super Bowls before stepping aside five seasons ago, regards the Giants as his [....]
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_rankings_coughlin_garrett_giants_cowboys_120711
Congressional Salaries of Past Year
by Legistorm Staff
Legistorm.com
December, 2011
Our congressional staff salary data comes from the official records of the House and Senate. We currently have House salary data for the period covering October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2011 and Senate data from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2011.
The amounts shown are not annual salaries but gross salary payments made during the periods shown. Read more about congressional staff salaries.
Browse Staff Salaries By ... [....]
http://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html
Until Next Sunday....
Obama's 'Tax Cut' Just One Item in a Holiday Spending Spree
by Brian H. Darling
Humanevents.com
December 5, 2011
The Obama class warfare campaign is in high gear.
There are many must-pass bills for Congress to consider before year’s end, giving President Obama leverage to promote his class-warfare agenda. The President has demanded that Congress continue and expand his payroll tax cut. His stimulus bill contained a 2% cut of the 6.2% Social Security tax rate, and to offset the loss of revenue, Obama would impose a 3.25% surtax on Americans making more than $1 million a year. The Obama “tax cut” would actually not reduce the tax burden by one cent. The Obama tax cut isn’t pro-growth for two reasons: It’s not a permanent or a net reduction in taxes. It’s merely another campaign ploy by President Obama to attack the wallets of upper-middle class and wealthy Americans.
Getting Paid Not to Work
Another issue being debated is an extension of unemployment benefits. By Dec. 31, benefits for the long-term unemployed who receive 99 weeks of income support will run out. Most expect a bill to pass to pay individuals not to work. Liberals don’t want to cut spending elsewhere to pay for an extension of these benefits. They even argued that this costly program should have been part of the Super Committee deal to reduce the deficit. They want this passed, and they don’t care about the cost to the taxpayers. Liberals argue that the extension of unemployment benefits provides a stimulus to the economy. James Sherk and Karen Campbell of The Heritage Foundation produced [....]
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&id=47935
13 Cities Where Home Prices Are Falling Dangerously
by Morgan Brennan
Forbes.com
December 8, 2011
(1 of 15-photos/text)
Cities Where Home Prices Are Falling Dangerously The folks at Local Market Monitor compiled a list of the 13 cities that suffered relatively big home price hits this year with more projected through the next 12 months. LMM sifted through market data for more than 300 [....]
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45gihj/cities-where-home-prices-are-falling-dangerously
Fact Checking the Iowa Debate
by ABC News
December 10, 2011Fact Check 1 - We’ll lose 1.6 million jobs over five years under the affordable healthcare act.
Fact Check 2 - Newt Gingrich would build a colony on the moon.
Fact Check 3 - Payroll tax cut: band-aid, gimmick or something else all together?
Fact Check 4 – Romney’s record on the Affordable Care Act.
Fact Check 5 – HPV vaccine vs. Romney’s health care plan.
Fact Check 6 – Palestinians as an “invented” people?
Fact or Fiction Number 1 - We’ll lose 1.6 million jobs over five years under the affordable healthcare act.
ABC News’ Amy Bingham reports:
GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann came out swinging at the ABC News Iowa debate Saturday night, but rather than taking a jab at her comrades on stage, the Minnesota congresswoman directed her ire at President Obama.
In her first answer of the evening Bachmann blasted the president’s health care legislation, saying the Affordable Care Act would kill 1.6 million jobs.
“We can cut government bureaucracy, which is Obamacare,” Bachmann said. “N.F.I.B. tells us, that’s the small [....]
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/fact-checking-the-debate-in-iowa/
Providing In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens: A Violation of Federal Law
by Hans von Spakovsky
Charles Stimson
November 22, 2011
Federal law prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State”—unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States. Today, 12 states are circumventing this federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense. Because at least one federal court of appeals has held that there is no private right of action under the specific statute in question—§ 1623 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996—the U.S. Department of Justice must enforce this statutory provision against states that have violated federal law. Yet even as it sues states like Arizona and Alabama for trying to assist the enforcement of federal immigration law, the U.S. government refuses to sue states that are incontrovertibly and brazenly violating an unambiguous federal immigration law. Such inaction is unacceptable: The President and the Attorney General have an obligation to enforce every provision of the United State’s comprehensive federal immigration regulations—including the federal law prohibiting state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State.”
In 1996, Congress passed—and President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).[i] Section 1623 of this federal statute prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State” unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States.[ii] Today, 12 states[iii] allow individuals who are in the United States illegally to pay the same in-state tuition rates as legal residents of the states[iv]—without providing the same rates to others. By circumventing the requirements of § 1623 these states are violating federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense.
A Nation of Laws, Not of Men
The United States is a country of immigrants—men and women who sought opportunity and freedom in an exceptional new land. Americans take pride in their heritage and this country’s generous policies regarding legal immigration. Yet, as citizens of a sovereign nation, Americans retain the right to decide who can and cannot enter this country—and what terms immigrants and visitors must accept as a condition of residing in the United States. As mandated [....]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/providing-in-state-tuition-for-illegal-aliens-a-violation-of-federal-law?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
The Covert Intelligence War Against Iran
by Scott Stewart,
STRATFOR.com
December 8, 2011
There has been a lot of talk in the press lately about a “cold war” being waged by the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies against Iran. Such a struggle is certainly taking place, but in order to place recent developments in perspective, it is important to recognize that the covert intelligence war against Iran (and the Iranian response to this war) is clearly not a new phenomenon. Indeed, STRATFOR has been chronicling this struggle since early 2007. Our coverage has included analyses of events such as the defection to the West of Iranian officials with knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear program; the Iranian seizure of British servicemen in the Shatt al Arab Waterway; the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists; the use of the Stuxnet worm to cripple Iranian uranium enrichment efforts; and Iranian efforts to arm its proxies and use them as a threat to counteract Western pressure. These proxies are most visible in Iraq and Lebanon, but they also exist in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
While the covert intelligence war has been under way for many years, the tempo of events that can readily be identified as part of it has been increasing over the past few months. It is important to note that many of these events are the result of hidden processes begun months or even years previously, so while visible events may indeed be increasing, the efforts responsible for many of them began to increase much earlier. What the activities of recent months do tell us is that the covert war between Iran and its enemies will not be [....]
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111207-covert-intelligence-war-against-iran?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=111208&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=dbd767cda712466b91d2fa37ca513b89
Interest soars in US peer-to-peer lending
By Matt Kennard and Shannon Bond
Financial Times
November 24, 2011
When Greg Dawson wanted to start his own photography business after graduating from college in 2003, he knew he needed money for expensive equipment and marketing materials to spread the word. He walked into his local Bank of America branch, asked for a small business loan – and was rejected.
“I was just starting out in my career, with college debt and no assets,” he said. “They just laughed at me.”
A Google search, however, led him to Prosper, the pioneer of the peer-to-peer lending sector. P2P lending connects borrowers with lenders, with P2P companies taking a percentage from both sides of the transaction. In the wake of the financial crisis, bank lending remains depressed even as hints of confidence have begun to return, and people are [....]
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2345e94a-0bb1-11e1-9a61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gE7HmsUq
[Invisible Senator] Gillibrand’s faux fix
Loophole-ridden ethics ‘reform’
by Michael A. Walsh
New York Post
December 1, 2011
‘Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day . . . there’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”
That was Tammany Hall leader George Washington Plunkitt, explaining back at the turn of the last century how it was that so many political leaders had become wealthy in “public service.” But today’s pols make the old corrupt Democratic Party machine that ruled New York City for nearly a century look like pikers.
Pelosi’s pal: Kirsten Gillibrand’s bill wouldn’t do enough to end congressional insider trading.
Take the disclosures two weeks ago on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that Congress is effectively exempt from insider-trading laws, and that members routinely act on nonpublic financial information that they acquire while doing the “people’s business” to boost their personal-investment portfolios. Reporter Steve Kroft grilled former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her uncanny trading ability: “I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO [initial public offering] deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit-card companies making its way through the House.”
Coincidentally, Pelosi’s net worth leaped 62 percent last year, to at least $35.2 million, attributed in news reports to “stock gains and smart investments.”
She’s not alone. Even in a down economy, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Major Leader Harry Reid and many others in Congress also saw handsome net-worth increases. In fact, some 245 of the 535 Congress members are millionaires, putting them squarely in the “one percent” that the Occupy Wall Street rabble is allegedly protesting.
Yet Pelosi could only sputter in reply: “I don’t know what your point is of your question.”
She may be the only one who can’t figure it out. Americans are finally waking up to the fact that we are ruled by oligarchs, many of whom entered Congress as folks of modest means and leave as millionaires and billionaires.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the estimated median net worth of a US senator now stands at $2.56 million — a remarkable feat considering that congressional base pay is $174,000 a year. In addition to Social Security, members also get a generous retirement plan and health-care benefits, as well as an annual automatic cost-of-living increase — unless they vote not to accept it. On top of all that, they get pensions that start at 80 percent of a qualifying member’s final salary. No wonder they spend so much money to win office and fight so hard to stay there. Still, with public satisfaction with Congress at near-record lows, the stench is getting hard to ignore. Which is why Congress is pretending to do something about its appalling ethical problems. In the wake of the “60 Minutes” report, the House Ethics Committee issued a toothless warning against the use of nonpublic information to line members’ personal coffers, and two senators introduced legislation to stop congressional insider trading.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced his STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which would prohibit Pelosi-like shenanigans by Congress members and executive-branch officials. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) followed him with her own version [....]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gillibrand_faux_fix_Gx4rwe8yWJtLdujpaR9GpL
JPMorgan Says Top European Stocks May Soar 84%
JPMorgan (JPM) expects European countries to get their house in order, boosting some shares by as much as 84% in the next 12 months.
Contributed by Thestreet.com
Forbes,
December 7, 2011 The U.S. investment bank identifies the shares of 30 companies in various industries that are worth buying heading into 2012. Most of the top picks are diversified across countries, though there’s a concentration in France and Germany, the most stable in the eurozone. A portfolio of JPMorgan’s top European picks for 2011 would have declined by 11% so far this year, compared with the benchmark Stoxx Europe 600 Index’s 12% drop. EADS, a Dutch aerospace and defense company, was the best-performing pick this year, up 25%. Carmaker PSA Peugeot Citroen was the firm’s worst selection, down 50%.
Monday was a big day for Europe. France and Germany told the European Union that they must decide if they will accept greater central control over their national budgets. Then Standard & Poor’s said it may cut Germany’s and France’s AAA credit ratings as the agency put 15 euro nations on review for a possible downgrade. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is currently on a three-day trip to Europe to push European leaders to commit [....]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thestreet/2011/12/07/jpmorgan-says-top-european-stocks-may-soar-84/
Rankings: Coughlin, Garrett on shaky ground
by Michael Silver,
Yahoo! Sports
December 7, 2011
It’s a battle for first place in the NFC East – with, potentially, one bummer of a booby prize.
For coaches Tom Coughlin and Jason Garrett, a defeat on Sunday night at Cowboys Stadium could be a hard shove toward the unemployment line. With Coughlin’s Giants (6-6) already reeling from a four-game losing streak and Garrett’s Cowboys coming off a brutal overtime defeat to the Cardinals that can be easily traced to the coach’s clock mismanagement, the specter of an ignominious collapse looms for the loser.
Heightening the drama is the perception that a pair of big-name coaches are hovering in the shadows as prospective replacements. There has long been a sense that Bill Cowher, who coached the Steelers to a pair of Super Bowls before stepping aside five seasons ago, regards the Giants as his [....]
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_rankings_coughlin_garrett_giants_cowboys_120711
Congressional Salaries of Past Year
by Legistorm Staff
Legistorm.com
December, 2011
Our congressional staff salary data comes from the official records of the House and Senate. We currently have House salary data for the period covering October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2011 and Senate data from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2011.
The amounts shown are not annual salaries but gross salary payments made during the periods shown. Read more about congressional staff salaries.
Browse Staff Salaries By ... [....]
http://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html
Until Next Sunday....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
