MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:44 pm
strange you should think so, Miller, Ryan reminds me of a weasel
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:45 pm
strange you should think so, Miller, Ryan reminds me of a young weasel.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 07:52 pm
@MontereyJack,


From Bloomberg.com.
Quote:
Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House
By Bob Drummond - May 7, 2012 9:00 PM PT

During an election-year clash over which U.S. political party has the best prescription for curing unemployment, Democrats can argue that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with them in the White House.
The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.


Has anybody heard the details of how Romney plans to "create" 12-million jobs in four years? We're all waiting.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Has anybody heard the details of how Romney plans to "create" 12-million jobs in four years? We're all waiting.


Several hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created within months if the Federal government would approave a route for the keystone pipeline and extend authoriuzation for oil and gas exploration on Federal lands. That is something that the president could do without any Congressional action. Moreover the revenues associated with the added oil and gas production would be quickly returned to the economy with reduced prices for consumers and reduced payments abroad for imported fuel.

Far more invesrtment and job creation would result from authorization for exploration & extraction off shore and in Alaska. Reduced cost of energy would lower the cost of U.S. manufactured goods, thus reducing imports and expanding exports yielding a quick, dramatic effect on our balance of payments and increased U.S. competitiveness across the board.

A revision in the governments current anti business policies and a reduction in the threats of increasing arbitrary (and unpredictable) regulation would very quickly stimulate added business investment in all sectors of the economy. All of these are job creating processes.

Right now our idiot government is doing a great deal to inhibit natural economic growth through its various environmental and financial regulatory policies, It is folowing the preconceived agenda of self-appointed zealots who believe they alone know what is good for the rest of us. All they have brought us so far is wasted government money on payoffs to their supporters in Solyndra and various "progressive" and environmental groups. They blame the resulting economic stagnation on their political opponents, when, in fact, we are dealing with the unhappy harvest of their own actions.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:47 pm
@georgeob1,
relaxing financial regulatory policies...

and where did that lead last time, Ob...?

it's almost as if you and finn and the other hard right folks are suggesting that as soon as someone other than Obama is in charge that they (big business) will just restart the economy and roll again.

which if it's true would also suggest that they are holding back and strangling the economy just to prove they can...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:51 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob, Just because you believe of the number of jobs it can create, you have ignored the pros and cons of the keystone pipeline; not everybody agrees it will be environment safe, and the necessity for upkeep, monitoring, and pump stations all along the pipeline that can affect the environment.

Maybe, the president has listened to the pros and cons from the experts and felt that further studies are needed to insure the safety of the program.

What you call "increasing arbitrary regulations" has not been proven.

Isn't that the reason why Wall Street got our country and the world into a financial crisis?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
ustry pays little to hold rights, critics see land grab


WASHINGTON — Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.


From Voxxi.
Quote:
Face the Facts: Many oil exploration initiatives are put on hold
Posted on October 12, 2012 By Griselda Nevarez Economy and Finance, Face the Facts

More than half the federally owned land approved for oil exploration and leased to energy firms for that purpose is going unexploited – because the companies holding the rights say it is not economically feasible.

According to the George Washington University’s Face the Facts USA initiative, up to 175 million barrels of untapped oil lie under federally owned land. Seventy percent of that land has been approved for exploration and drilling. However, 56 percent of it is not being explored or in production at the end of 2011.

The top state with the most federal leased acres producing oil and gas is New Mexico followed by Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and Nevada.

There is even less exploration offshore. About 72 percent of the area leased to energy interests offshore is not producing or is being explored for oil.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/face-facts-oil-exploration-hold/#ixzz29F5eHayq
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 10:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Its Obamas fault. He should be out there with a hand drill drilling for oil.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 11:07 pm
@georgeob1,
Oh! You mean if only that one project had been okayed, then the recession would have been averted?

That seems... simplistic.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:12 am
@DrewDad,
Watch this! The Obama team is promising more aggression at the next debate, and the "No Party" is going to complain he didn't look "presidential," because they can't argue on the issues.

Remember this.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
I think Romney's going to try to beat Obama over the head with Benghazi for an hour and a half.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:25 am
@snood,
Another FACT that the conservatives ignores; the country didn't want more outside security force in their country, AND the increase was rejected by the State Department, not the administration.

What president micro-manages all details of the multitude of departments?

Can you name one?

snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:50 am
@cicerone imposter,
Right now I'm more concerned with how easy it will be to attack with issues like Benghazi than I am about the truth of the story. Right now it is all about strategy, not with hand-wringing about how the Republicans won't be honest.
Right now it's about whether Obama will commit to a knife fight Tuesday night - to defend his record with passion - to point out hiw opponent's weaknesses with bite.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:58 am
@snood,
That could be, but I believe the bigger problem is that conservatives don't wish to hear the facts or the truth on anything. They just want to replace Obama.

I can't think of any white president getting the same treatment from so many from the opposing party. It goes beyond birthers, women's rights, jobs, the economy, taxation, foreign relations, or the stock market.

They don't want to talk about substance; replace Obama at any cost.



snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 12:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That may be true and I think it is, but worrying about those things is not going to increase the chances of making sure Obama gets a second term. I think we can all look at the Romney/Ryan lack of respect for the truth (or for the president) and shake our heads.

But I think after we shake our heads and acknowledge what a shame their behavior is, we need to be about the business of winning the election. Too much - too much is at stake to be too bogged down by the lowlife tactics of the opposition.

I think that people who really care about the outcome of this race should persuade someone or several someones they know to register and to vote for the man who will be best for the country - Barack Obama.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 12:17 pm
@snood,
According to polls, 50% of independents believe Biden won (vs 30%); that's an important distinction about all this bruhaha going about "who won."

Logic and strategy is not what will win this election; it's the voters going out to vote - especially women, the younger generation, and minorities.

Romney-Ryan talk about the unemployed, but under Obama, over 5-million jobs were "created" immediately after GW Bush's tenure was bleeding 800,000 every month when Obama took over the white house. That's a miracle.

Romney-Ryan talk about the increasing debt; most of which were the result of Republican administrations.

Romney-Ryan talk about creating 12-million jobs in four years. Where's the detail?

Finally, the stock market has performed very well under Obama. That's an indication that our economy compared to all economies is doing very well.

Where's the beef?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 01:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here's the truth meter on Romney: As expected over 60% are lies.

From Politifact.
Quote:
Half True51 (28%)(51)
Mostly False32 (17%)(32)
False31 (17%)(31)
Pants on Fire16 (9%
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 01:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here's another observation; when republicans are asked questions, they talk fast, but never answer the question. And most of what they say are lies.

They talk about Romney's 12-million jobs as the answer to "revenue neutral," but again fail to provide details on how those jobs will be "created."
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 01:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They talk about Romney's 12-million jobs as the answer to "revenue neutral," but again fail to provide details on how those jobs will be "created."

obamacare was claimed to be rev neutral too, but of course it is not. They all lie and have for a long time. "Romney lies!" will get you no place with the American people, we are jaded through experience.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 01:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, Just because you believe of the number of jobs it can create, you have ignored the pros and cons of the keystone pipeline; not everybody agrees it will be environment safe, and the necessity for upkeep, monitoring, and pump stations all along the pipeline that can affect the environment.
There is one 26 mile segment of the proposed pipeline that passes through some sandy soil in Nebraska that could lead to some groundwater intrusion in the event of a leak. Rerouting the pipeline around it is a very small adjustment to which the builders would readily agree. There are pipelines and pumping stations all over the country already, and their environmental effect is know and minimal

With respect for the authorization of oil and gass exploration & extraction on Federal lands , offshore and in Alaska, Cicerone wrote;
cicerone imposter wrote:
Maybe, the president has listened to the pros and cons from the experts and felt that further studies are needed to insure the safety of the program.
The prose and cons involve the very unemployment and slow economic recovery we have been talking about. Obama has stupidly chosen to impose unemployment on the very middle class he pretends to love precisely to advance his foolish(and radical) environmental agenda. We need to use our abundant natural gas to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum and coal. Doing so will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead Obama gave away hundreds of billions to cronies and contributors to design and produce new solar panels - all of whom went bankrupt.

cicerone imposter wrote:

What you call "increasing arbitrary regulations" has not been proven. {/quote] Nonsense. Dodd Frank gave enormous arbitrary powers to bureaucratic regulators who are authorized to act independently of Congressional control and called for hundreds of regulations, most of which haven't yet been written. The effect is to paralyze enormous amounts of capital that would otherwise be invested in productive economic activity.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Isn't that the reason why Wall Street got our country and the world into a financial crisis?
No. The continuing world financial crisis has far more to do with excessive government borrowing and spending on social welfare programs and labor market regulations that together lowered economic productivity. Now, unable to borrow more and with populations accoustomed to being taken care of by government they find themselves with no way out.
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 111
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 08:32:16