Last edited:
my idea for job creation
- Thread starter ruffryder
- Start date
D
DOO DAWG
Well-known member
And You? What color is that kettle?
As for job creation... From my discover Pass thread......
In this Blue, Libbie, greenie, NIMBY, nanny state where so many would RATHER have no jobs created than build coal export facilities so they can TRY to stop China (Where everything they GLEEFULLY consume is made) from coal power generation, our populace (pugetropolis) continually allows these types that have created these messes to be re elected over and over! ENJOY those extra $100 license fees seattle.
Last edited:
shades of blue....
Ruffy
other additions.. ammendments, laws and rules passed by congress. Since the constitution involves mechanisms that allow for changing the constitution and adding amendments, it is definitely allowed to change. The constitution allows for congress to change it. Oh, and it doesn't breathe. So, if I assume that you are a strict constitutionalists, what is your stance on a standing federal army?
Originally Posted by ruffryder
Well, the constitution created the framework that allowed for a congress to create rules and the like. Therefore what congress and the government does is constitutional....
Do you believe that we should follow the constitution with no other additions
Not everything congress and the government does is constitutional, thats why we have a judicial system. Are you agreeing that only dually ratified amendments are, as you call them "additions", Constitutional. Only laws (rules) made persuant to the constitution are constitutional. And amendments must be ratified by the states not simply put in place by congress. As for a standing army it was repugnent to the founding fathers, that is why we have the posse commitatus act. I don't think we need to discuss that here. You talk about seqways you jump all over the board.
Ruffy
I guess not. You segwayed very quickly from stimulus to spending tax payer money, I guess I didn't realize you were talking about "tax payer money" as being non-stimulus.
Anyways, I believe you stated "give" to Brazil. It wasn't a gift, it was a loan, and it seems like it wasn't any taxpayer money anyways.
Your original statemdent
Dump crap loads of money into our electrical infrastructure, electrical generation, transmission, distribution, metering.. all that crap.
How did we jump to taxpayer money when we started with taxpayer money?
Ruffy
so again, what information sources do you accept?
I prefer opinions from those with no ax to grind and not affiliated with the agency to be subjective. There are many if you care to look beyond liberal sources, here is one you could read from congress. Swampy
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) wants answers from the US taxpayer supported Export-Import bank about $2billion loan to Brazil for offshore drilling. Vitter’s home state is suffering under a moratorium imposed by President Barack Obama. Vitter said Louisianians “are frustrated” and he wants to know “why permitting domestically is nearly stalled…” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) had questions about ExIM—nine years ago when he asked Congress to reject the reauthorization of ExIm for “economic, constitutional and moral reasons.”
Vitter sent a letter to Fred Hochberg, Ex-Im president, on March 17. Vitter asked Hochberg to identify all US companies that have increased exports because of the US taxpayer funded loan to Brazil. Vitter wanted to know which exports have increased, the return on investment and the names of all US and foreign investors “that increased their shareholdings in Petrobras in excess of $50 million within a six month period before and after the ExIm loan.”
Curiously during the same time frame the loan to Brazil was announced in August, 2009, Bloomberg announced George Soros “sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras…” Soros is a billionaire who often supports socialist-progressive groups and candidates.By September, headlines at Businessweek announced Petrobras raised $70 billion in capital. The capital was raised in the “world’s largest share sale.” Afterwards Petrobras, said the news service, became the fourth largest company in the world.
Scribd featured a list of Petrobras investors. Petrobras is state-controlled.
In 2002, Paul who is known as a fiscal hawk, delivered a passionate speech on the House floor calling ExIm “corporate welfare.” Paul pointed out ExIm was an “agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities.” Paul rightly pointed out the establishment of ExIm was unconstitutional.
ExIm was founded by a Democrat, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt routinely ignored the tenets of the US Constitution with many of his socialist-leaning programs.
With credit tightening for Main Street, Paul’s characterization of ExIm is particularly troubling. Paul said, “In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available.”
Paul concluded: “Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.”
Paul disclosed that Enron had received more than $640 million “in taxpayer funded assistance” from ExIm. Ironically China was at the time one of the biggest beneficiaries of ExIm’s largesse.
Vitter isn’t happy with the sweet deal ExIm gave Brazil for offshore drilling Obama is prohibiting US companies from doing. Vitter closed his letter to Hochberg with a reminder he wants answers: “I am sure you can understand the frustration Louisianians have with a $2 billion loan to produce energy offshore Brazil. Given that U.S. offshore oil and gas reserves are estimated at nearly triple the 40 billion barrels estimated offshore Brazil, a thorough response from you would be helpful in understanding why permitting domestically is nearly stalled, and if there is at least a return on investment for supporting production offshore Brazil.”
It might also be appropriate to hold hearings. Has anyone thought to ask how much the US taxpayer lost on Enron?
In a formal statement, Vitter said Obama’s support for Petrobras oil drilling is “ridiculous.”
Democrats claim to look out for the interests of the people. What they fail to mention are those people are apparently citizens of other countries when it comes to hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars fueling ExIm since FDR.
other additions.. ammendments, laws and rules passed by congress. Since the constitution involves mechanisms that allow for changing the constitution and adding amendments, it is definitely allowed to change. The constitution allows for congress to change it. Oh, and it doesn't breathe. So, if I assume that you are a strict constitutionalists, what is your stance on a standing federal army?
Originally Posted by ruffryder
Well, the constitution created the framework that allowed for a congress to create rules and the like. Therefore what congress and the government does is constitutional....
Do you believe that we should follow the constitution with no other additions
Not everything congress and the government does is constitutional, thats why we have a judicial system. Are you agreeing that only dually ratified amendments are, as you call them "additions", Constitutional. Only laws (rules) made persuant to the constitution are constitutional. And amendments must be ratified by the states not simply put in place by congress. As for a standing army it was repugnent to the founding fathers, that is why we have the posse commitatus act. I don't think we need to discuss that here. You talk about seqways you jump all over the board.
Ruffy
I guess not. You segwayed very quickly from stimulus to spending tax payer money, I guess I didn't realize you were talking about "tax payer money" as being non-stimulus.
Anyways, I believe you stated "give" to Brazil. It wasn't a gift, it was a loan, and it seems like it wasn't any taxpayer money anyways.
Your original statemdent
Dump crap loads of money into our electrical infrastructure, electrical generation, transmission, distribution, metering.. all that crap.
How did we jump to taxpayer money when we started with taxpayer money?
Ruffy
so again, what information sources do you accept?
I prefer opinions from those with no ax to grind and not affiliated with the agency to be subjective. There are many if you care to look beyond liberal sources, here is one you could read from congress. Swampy
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) wants answers from the US taxpayer supported Export-Import bank about $2billion loan to Brazil for offshore drilling. Vitter’s home state is suffering under a moratorium imposed by President Barack Obama. Vitter said Louisianians “are frustrated” and he wants to know “why permitting domestically is nearly stalled…” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) had questions about ExIM—nine years ago when he asked Congress to reject the reauthorization of ExIm for “economic, constitutional and moral reasons.”
Vitter sent a letter to Fred Hochberg, Ex-Im president, on March 17. Vitter asked Hochberg to identify all US companies that have increased exports because of the US taxpayer funded loan to Brazil. Vitter wanted to know which exports have increased, the return on investment and the names of all US and foreign investors “that increased their shareholdings in Petrobras in excess of $50 million within a six month period before and after the ExIm loan.”
Curiously during the same time frame the loan to Brazil was announced in August, 2009, Bloomberg announced George Soros “sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras…” Soros is a billionaire who often supports socialist-progressive groups and candidates.By September, headlines at Businessweek announced Petrobras raised $70 billion in capital. The capital was raised in the “world’s largest share sale.” Afterwards Petrobras, said the news service, became the fourth largest company in the world.
Scribd featured a list of Petrobras investors. Petrobras is state-controlled.
In 2002, Paul who is known as a fiscal hawk, delivered a passionate speech on the House floor calling ExIm “corporate welfare.” Paul pointed out ExIm was an “agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities.” Paul rightly pointed out the establishment of ExIm was unconstitutional.
ExIm was founded by a Democrat, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt routinely ignored the tenets of the US Constitution with many of his socialist-leaning programs.
With credit tightening for Main Street, Paul’s characterization of ExIm is particularly troubling. Paul said, “In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available.”
Paul concluded: “Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.”
Paul disclosed that Enron had received more than $640 million “in taxpayer funded assistance” from ExIm. Ironically China was at the time one of the biggest beneficiaries of ExIm’s largesse.
Vitter isn’t happy with the sweet deal ExIm gave Brazil for offshore drilling Obama is prohibiting US companies from doing. Vitter closed his letter to Hochberg with a reminder he wants answers: “I am sure you can understand the frustration Louisianians have with a $2 billion loan to produce energy offshore Brazil. Given that U.S. offshore oil and gas reserves are estimated at nearly triple the 40 billion barrels estimated offshore Brazil, a thorough response from you would be helpful in understanding why permitting domestically is nearly stalled, and if there is at least a return on investment for supporting production offshore Brazil.”
It might also be appropriate to hold hearings. Has anyone thought to ask how much the US taxpayer lost on Enron?
In a formal statement, Vitter said Obama’s support for Petrobras oil drilling is “ridiculous.”
Democrats claim to look out for the interests of the people. What they fail to mention are those people are apparently citizens of other countries when it comes to hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars fueling ExIm since FDR.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by milehighassassin
Private sector did a great job running our banks... just saying.
Uh who is moving rants? I was just answering MHA's post. Maybe you should read all of the posts. Swampy
agreed. So it is constitutional to change the constitution right (after all the checks and balances have been completed)?
That is only half of it.
Here is an interesting link.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp
Some quotes from one of the founding fathers.. Madison
and another from Madison
interesting quotes. Swampy, would you agree with their thoughts?
I was confused when we jumped from taxpayer to stimulus and then back to stimulus. I guess you need to be a little more clear for me.
was the EX-IM bank a liberal source? Affiliated with an agency.. it WAS the agency... jeez man.I prefer opinions from those with no ax to grind and not affiliated with the agency to be subjective. There are many if you care to look beyond liberal sources, here is one you could read from congress. Swampy
So to sum up the article, Vitter is angry that his state can't drill for oil, and things the government is giving money to Brazil. He doesn't think the EX-IM bank has the benefits that it claims (increasing exports and jobs in the US).
Then the article states a bunch of things about the stock price of Petrobras, about Soros selling stock.
Then the article goes on to show that Ron Paul doesn't like the EX-IM bank because it is "corporate welfare" to US businesses. Agreed it is corporate welfare, giving an advantage to US companies instead of those abroad. But that would have to mean that it DOES benefit the US, wouldn't it?
Then the article goes back to state that Vitter did not get a response by the EX-IM bank, so it seems it is just a guess that there was no benefit to US companies in terms of exported goods / services.
Followed by a line from the editor
So no where in the article was it proved that the EX-IM bank does not improve exports, and it is not US taxpayer dollars, as the funding comes from the loans that are given out.
So is that unbiased, no ax to grind? There really wasn't any information in it, just a bunch of accusations and no data, but it seems it didn't stop the author from drawing the conclusion anyways.
This wasn't as fun as I thought it would be...
Last edited:
Most new plants I have seen are not eyesores in my opinion they just look like modern structures with lots of landscaping and vegitation, not the miles of area needed for windfarms. As for your other question I have not researched those statistics so maybe you can enlighten us. However I doubt the trains are only carrying coal. My arguments prove a lot to me, I want niothing to do with windfarms.Swampy
No, typically a coal train just carries coal. They usually have to go off the main line and up a branch to the coal mine to load. Typically there is nothing but coal on these trains.
My point being is that coal causes damage as well. Yes, I agree we have a lot of it and should stick with it, but we need to clean it up. Coal plants put off more radiation than nuclear plants do. I don't know how bad it is for you, but that is a fact, coal also pollutes air. There is a lot of new technology out there that combines the air coming out with other chemicals and transforms it to safer alternatives. There is also some technology where they pump the air into the ground and it produces other usable energy.
Either way we should try new things, and that includes wind, solar and alternatives with coal.
I have never seen a power plant that was not an eyesore. They all still have stacks. I am not saying that is bad, it is what it is and we need them, but to make the argument that other energy shouldn't happen because of the eyesore is not a good argument. I personally think windfarms look pretty cool.
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
a electric truck wont pull my sleds up to the mountain
Evergreen Energy Inc.(EEE)
K-Fuel®
K-Fuel® technology makes the world’s most available energy source cleaner, more heat-efficient, and affordable…
Evergreen Energy’s K-Fuel® technology is a new generation of energy processes that can significantly reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants. The K-Fuel® clean coal approach increases the heating value of low-rank fuels while decreasing the environmental impact of coal energy production. This is accomplished by refining coal before it is burned to increase energy densities and combustion efficiencies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. K-Fuel® is a commercially validated clean coal process that upgrades low-grade coal to improve efficiency of combustion, decrease contaminants, and reduce emissions.
K-Fuel®
K-Fuel® technology makes the world’s most available energy source cleaner, more heat-efficient, and affordable…
Evergreen Energy’s K-Fuel® technology is a new generation of energy processes that can significantly reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants. The K-Fuel® clean coal approach increases the heating value of low-rank fuels while decreasing the environmental impact of coal energy production. This is accomplished by refining coal before it is burned to increase energy densities and combustion efficiencies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. K-Fuel® is a commercially validated clean coal process that upgrades low-grade coal to improve efficiency of combustion, decrease contaminants, and reduce emissions.
If you think windfarms are cool thats your opinion and you are welcome to it, the post you challanged was simply my response to Ruffy's question odf what I had against windpower, it was my opinion. So I guess in the end we should just agree to disagree. Swampy
Yes I get my information from super secret sites on the fringe of society you probably would not want to visit. Here are a few though if you ever get the urge.
globalwarming.org
openmarket.org
examiner.com
thedailybeast.com
heritage.org
pajamasmedia.com
investigativereportingworkshop.com
adcnews.go.com
washingtonexaminer.com
wordpress.com
instapundit.com
onlinewsj.com
You can go look at the articles yourself. However here is an article from globalwarming.com. Swampy
President Obama is refusing accept deals that would raise the federal debt ceiling because they would require him to accept cuts in wasteful green-jobs and rail boondoggles and stimulus spending: “The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama’s ‘untouchable’ list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on ‘green’ jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.” If the debt ceiling is not raised, America’s credit rating may be downgraded, leading to higher interest payments on the debt in the future.
Obama’s refusal to reconsider green-jobs spending is unfortunate given how such spending has backfired, effectively outsourcing thousands of American jobs at taxpayer expense. ABC News reports on the subsidies for Chinese wind turbines contained in the stimulus package:
Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University’s School of Communication in Washington, D.C.
Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.
“Most of the jobs are going overseas,” said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. “According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.” Even with the infusion of so much stimulus money, a recent report by American Wind Energy Association showed a drop in U.S. wind manufacturing jobs last year.
The biggest recipient of green-jobs funding in the stimulus package was a bankrupt Australian company that imported Japanese turbines for a windmill farm. (Spain’s “green jobs” program, which Obama cited 8 times as a model for his own green jobs and global-warming programs, completely failed, destroying jobs and driving up Spain’s skyrocketing government deficit. Each new green job “created” in Spain wiped out 2.2 existing jobs and cost $800,000. New EPA rules dealing with global warming are expected to wipe out more than 800,000 jobs, while proposed EPA ozone rules could wipe out millions more.)
Obama’s refusal to cut any stimulus spending is foolhardy. Much stimulus money has been wasted. It has gone to prisoners and dead people, wasteful welfare spending, abandoned bridges to nowhere, and unnecessary government buildings. Recently, $130,000 in stimulus money was spent for a book that demonized white people and encouraged teachers to treat students differently based on their race, based on wacky racial stereotypes.
The stimulus also wiped out jobs in America’s export sector. Economists Timothy Conley and Bill Dupor say that the stimulus wiped out 550,000 jobs.
The “’stimulus’ is not the road to economic recovery. It’s the problem, not the solution, writes Nobel Prize winning economist Vernon L. Smith.” Other Nobel Laureates like Gary Becker have also criticized the stimulus package. 200 economists signed a statement publicly opposing the stimulus package in an ad published in the Washington Post and New York Times. Harvard University economics professor Robert Barro called it “the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s.”
Obama’s so-called “high-speed” rail projects, which he also refuses to cut, are grossly wasteful. They are anything but “high-speed,” and will be used by very few travelers at an incredible cost of at least “$35.3 million per mile of track.” “Most do not even meet the requirements of the common definitions of ‘high-speed rail,’” since they will not allow trains to move anywhere near as fast as they do in Europe, Japan, or China.
Ruffy
agreed. So it is constitutional to change the constitution right (after all the checks and balances have been completed)?
So after all the endless rambling the answer is "YES" you agree.
That is only half of it.
Here is an interesting link.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp
Some quotes from one of the founding fathers.. Madison
Quote:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
and another from Madison
Quote:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
interesting quotes. Swampy, would you agree with their thoughts?
I allready noted this is not the thread to argue this issue, start another one this is getting to long allready. Talk about not focusing!
Ruffy
I was confused when we jumped from taxpayer to stimulus and then back to stimulus. I guess you need to be a little more clear for me.
Again I was simply following your original post which asked for dumping lots of taxpayer money,stimulous or not, into your favorite projects.
Ruffy
So to sum up the article, Vitter is angry that his state can't drill for oil, and things the government is giving money to Brazil. He doesn't think the EX-IM bank has the benefits that it claims (increasing exports and jobs in the US).
Then the article states a bunch of things about the stock price of Petrobras, about Soros selling stock.
Then the article goes on to show that Ron Paul doesn't like the EX-IM bank because it is "corporate welfare" to US businesses. Agreed it is corporate welfare, giving an advantage to US companies instead of those abroad. But that would have to mean that it DOES benefit the US, wouldn't it?
Then the article goes back to state that Vitter did not get a response by the EX-IM bank, so it seems it is just a guess that there was no benefit to US companies in terms of exported goods / services.
Followed by a line from the editor
I guess the anology would be if a 737 crashed and the government put a moritorium on any further planed building by Boeing etc. and all the boeing employees were put out of work, than OB got the exim bank to finance Airbus to build the planes the government needed to buy, how would you expect our reps and senators to proceed and would you agree with these actions as you are with the Brazil issue.
Here is another article on the issue from thenewamerican,com
Raven Clabough | The New American
23 June 2010
Democratic politicians would have us believe that the Republicans are pro-big oil companies and that the Dems are against the “evil oil giants.” Why, then, did President Barack Obama approve a transfer of $2 billion American tax dollars to help fund the Brazilian oil company Petrobras? The answer is relatively simple: It has to do with George Soros’ Center for American Progress, and the groups’ influence on President Obama.
George Soros is a billionaire radical progressive globalist who supports a socialist agenda for America, believes in toppling the free-market system, and the creation of a "new world order." (See interview, below.) He has invested in groups like Open Society Institute, which advocates for social justice, the anti-capitalist Tides Foundation, and the progressive blog site Media Matters.
In 2003, Soros created the Center for American Progress, a group that has taken credit for Obama’s 2008 victory, for helping to create Obama’s team of cabinet members, and for the creation of his administration's policies, including "Cap and Trade."
Likewise, the Center for American Progress encouraged President Obama to set up an escrow account for BP to deposit billions of dollars for Gulf Coast residents, and asked that he set up a commission to investigate the causes of the largest American oil spill in history.
The Center for American Progress also asked President Obama to pass a bill requiring the California Public Utilities Commission to develop a plan for a smart grid. California now has the grid, provided by General Electric, a powerful supporter of the Obama administration.
Obviously, this group is influential.
In addition to Soros’ powerful Center for American Progress, the SEC filings indicate that Soros also has invested $637 million in Petrobras, a Brazilian state-controlled oil company that boasts $15 billion a year in profits.
Strangely enough, the Obama administration pledged $2 billion in preliminary commitments for Petrobras for exploration, even after the British Petroleum oil spill, which has prompted President Obama to declare a 6-month drilling moratorium on all drilling. The question is, why would Obama feel it necessary to give money that America does not have, to a company that is already netting impressive profits annually?
Ironically, even as President Obama bans deepwater drilling at 1,500 meters, Petrobras is drilling at 2,777 meters. By banning deepwater drilling for Americans, Obama is virtually destroying all American competitors of Petrobras.
A brave reporter questioned White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Obama’s decision to invest money in Petrobras: “There are a couple of reports about an ex-import bank loaned to the Brazilian government for offshore drilling, Petrobras. And I’m wondering if you can give us an administration take on why investment in Brazil and petroleum exploration there is a good idea, helpful for the U.S. economy.” To this, Gibbs replied, “I’ve not seen that story. I’d have to take a look at the story.”
What’s worse is that the White House justified the moratorium by using the testimony of 15 experts who allegedly agreed with the administration’s decision. However, according to the panel of experts, two paragraphs were added to the report after the experts signed it — the same two paragraphs that recommended a moratorium.
When word of this was released, eight of the experts addressed a letter to the Interior Department where they explicitly stated that they had not in fact recommended a moratorium, and in fact, wholly disagree with a moratorium, claiming it would do more damage to the economy: “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce the risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than the oil spill.”
Likewise, the President is using the oil spill to impose upon Americans cap and trade legislation, heavily supported by the Center for American Progress. We find ourselves once again confronted by Crime, Inc. (Read: Crime, Inc.— The Movement Toward Global Government).
The moratorium is expected to cost rig workers $330 million per month in loss of wages. Thirty-five rigs will sit idly while Brazil’s Petrobras will continue to drill as deep as 14,000 feet. George Soros will continue to get richer while Americans will lose $6 billion in wages, at the request of our President. Why? Here’s another interesting, perhaps coincidental, tidbit: John Podesta is the head of the Soros’ Center for American Progress. His brother, Tony Podesta, is the lobbyist for British Petroleum. John and Tony also started their own lobbying company together, an apparent conflict of interest given the current situation in the Gulf.
In addition to BP, Tony Podesta’s clients include NBC Universal, a company that is owned by General Electric, the company that provided the smart grid for California, recommended by the Center for American Progress.
Could it be that the tangled web Obama weaves grows more sticky — or is this all a mere coincidence?
agreed. So it is constitutional to change the constitution right (after all the checks and balances have been completed)?
So after all the endless rambling the answer is "YES" you agree.
That is only half of it.
Here is an interesting link.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp
Some quotes from one of the founding fathers.. Madison
Quote:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
and another from Madison
Quote:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
interesting quotes. Swampy, would you agree with their thoughts?
I allready noted this is not the thread to argue this issue, start another one this is getting to long allready. Talk about not focusing!
Ruffy
I was confused when we jumped from taxpayer to stimulus and then back to stimulus. I guess you need to be a little more clear for me.
Again I was simply following your original post which asked for dumping lots of taxpayer money,stimulous or not, into your favorite projects.
Ruffy
So to sum up the article, Vitter is angry that his state can't drill for oil, and things the government is giving money to Brazil. He doesn't think the EX-IM bank has the benefits that it claims (increasing exports and jobs in the US).
Then the article states a bunch of things about the stock price of Petrobras, about Soros selling stock.
Then the article goes on to show that Ron Paul doesn't like the EX-IM bank because it is "corporate welfare" to US businesses. Agreed it is corporate welfare, giving an advantage to US companies instead of those abroad. But that would have to mean that it DOES benefit the US, wouldn't it?
Then the article goes back to state that Vitter did not get a response by the EX-IM bank, so it seems it is just a guess that there was no benefit to US companies in terms of exported goods / services.
Followed by a line from the editor
I guess the anology would be if a 737 crashed and the government put a moritorium on any further planed building by Boeing etc. and all the boeing employees were put out of work, than OB got the exim bank to finance Airbus to build the planes the government needed to buy, how would you expect our reps and senators to proceed and would you agree with these actions as you are with the Brazil issue.
Here is another article on the issue from thenewamerican,com
Raven Clabough | The New American
23 June 2010
Democratic politicians would have us believe that the Republicans are pro-big oil companies and that the Dems are against the “evil oil giants.” Why, then, did President Barack Obama approve a transfer of $2 billion American tax dollars to help fund the Brazilian oil company Petrobras? The answer is relatively simple: It has to do with George Soros’ Center for American Progress, and the groups’ influence on President Obama.
George Soros is a billionaire radical progressive globalist who supports a socialist agenda for America, believes in toppling the free-market system, and the creation of a "new world order." (See interview, below.) He has invested in groups like Open Society Institute, which advocates for social justice, the anti-capitalist Tides Foundation, and the progressive blog site Media Matters.
In 2003, Soros created the Center for American Progress, a group that has taken credit for Obama’s 2008 victory, for helping to create Obama’s team of cabinet members, and for the creation of his administration's policies, including "Cap and Trade."
Likewise, the Center for American Progress encouraged President Obama to set up an escrow account for BP to deposit billions of dollars for Gulf Coast residents, and asked that he set up a commission to investigate the causes of the largest American oil spill in history.
The Center for American Progress also asked President Obama to pass a bill requiring the California Public Utilities Commission to develop a plan for a smart grid. California now has the grid, provided by General Electric, a powerful supporter of the Obama administration.
Obviously, this group is influential.
In addition to Soros’ powerful Center for American Progress, the SEC filings indicate that Soros also has invested $637 million in Petrobras, a Brazilian state-controlled oil company that boasts $15 billion a year in profits.
Strangely enough, the Obama administration pledged $2 billion in preliminary commitments for Petrobras for exploration, even after the British Petroleum oil spill, which has prompted President Obama to declare a 6-month drilling moratorium on all drilling. The question is, why would Obama feel it necessary to give money that America does not have, to a company that is already netting impressive profits annually?
Ironically, even as President Obama bans deepwater drilling at 1,500 meters, Petrobras is drilling at 2,777 meters. By banning deepwater drilling for Americans, Obama is virtually destroying all American competitors of Petrobras.
A brave reporter questioned White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Obama’s decision to invest money in Petrobras: “There are a couple of reports about an ex-import bank loaned to the Brazilian government for offshore drilling, Petrobras. And I’m wondering if you can give us an administration take on why investment in Brazil and petroleum exploration there is a good idea, helpful for the U.S. economy.” To this, Gibbs replied, “I’ve not seen that story. I’d have to take a look at the story.”
What’s worse is that the White House justified the moratorium by using the testimony of 15 experts who allegedly agreed with the administration’s decision. However, according to the panel of experts, two paragraphs were added to the report after the experts signed it — the same two paragraphs that recommended a moratorium.
When word of this was released, eight of the experts addressed a letter to the Interior Department where they explicitly stated that they had not in fact recommended a moratorium, and in fact, wholly disagree with a moratorium, claiming it would do more damage to the economy: “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce the risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than the oil spill.”
Likewise, the President is using the oil spill to impose upon Americans cap and trade legislation, heavily supported by the Center for American Progress. We find ourselves once again confronted by Crime, Inc. (Read: Crime, Inc.— The Movement Toward Global Government).
The moratorium is expected to cost rig workers $330 million per month in loss of wages. Thirty-five rigs will sit idly while Brazil’s Petrobras will continue to drill as deep as 14,000 feet. George Soros will continue to get richer while Americans will lose $6 billion in wages, at the request of our President. Why? Here’s another interesting, perhaps coincidental, tidbit: John Podesta is the head of the Soros’ Center for American Progress. His brother, Tony Podesta, is the lobbyist for British Petroleum. John and Tony also started their own lobbying company together, an apparent conflict of interest given the current situation in the Gulf.
In addition to BP, Tony Podesta’s clients include NBC Universal, a company that is owned by General Electric, the company that provided the smart grid for California, recommended by the Center for American Progress.
Could it be that the tangled web Obama weaves grows more sticky — or is this all a mere coincidence?
So you think it is a living document then right?
just be clear what you are talking about then when making statements. Do you still think money was given to Petrobros? lol
While that analogy is apt, what you seem to not realize is that there are two different agencies and functions going on here. The ex-im bank is trying to increase US exports. The ex-im bank does not have the power to make policy changes in the US govt. They give out LOANS, that is all. While it is easy to get angry for things being "not fair" I think Vitter should have directed his anger to a group that could actually do something. Funny, I point out that the writer of the article made a conclusion at the end that was based on information that was missing from the article and all you can do is post more articles? Where is your critical thinking swampy?
I thought it was a loan? Did the president approve it? I thought it was just the EX-IM bank that approves these things. Swampy, you seem to be using editorials as information sources. It seems these days that the line between editorials and journalism isn't as defined as it once was. That sucks...
Here is an interesting link with a different point on the issue.
http://conservative-outlooks.com/20...ives-approval-for-facility-in-gulf-of-mexico/
Note it seems that Soros changed his stock in Petrobras from common to preffered... He didn't sell out. Though it seems that doesn't stop you from going on an anti-Soros rant.. The article makes many statements about "giving" money to Petrobras, and that Obama gave it... The EX-IM bank does this. Sources swampy... sources..
This thread has already been derailed... So you going to answer the question? What are your thoughts about a standing military? Shouldn't a person that wants us to follow the constitution and the will and spirit of the founding fathers be against a standing army?
Last edited:
I like all sorts of information sources. I just get tired of editorials used as journalism. Keep the opinion out of an article people. Let the information speak for itself.. It is sad that editorials and sensationalism are more important then journalism these days. I guess it pays the bills...
man, journalism these days is just retarded. Or maybe it is the fact that things have gotten so complex that it takes more time to research the issues then it does to just gigo them out.
Part of the reason for a reduction in US manufacturing of wind turbines is due to GE trying to sue and threaten all the other wind manufacturers to stop building / selling the type 4 (most efficient) wind turbines. GE stopped Mitsubishi from selling its wind turbines, effectively eliminating its imports and stopped Mitsubishi from building its plant in Arkansas.
http://www.greenpatentblog.com/2010/01/27/mitsubishi-powers-past-ge-in-itc-wind-turbine-case/
On thing people don't realize is that we are not the market leader of wind technology and we do not have the manufacturing capability here to do it. Also, it seems GE has limited the competition in the markets.
What is this fixation you have for that issue, I allready answered your question, start a new thread this ones long enough.
Maybe thats because most americans don't want those wind farms. There is plenty of newer solar technology they could loan money for, but that might stay in the us and create jobs for us workers. Even T Boone Pickens gave up on wind power. Swampy
