Obama's economic record chart. Question for Obama supporters

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

BadgerKustoms wrote: Archer, I believe he's saying that Republicans, (or at least Perry), are opting for domestic oil producers rather than continuing business in the Middle East. Personally I think that's a good idea, we can produce our own, so why haven't we?




Badger

Perfect exapmle. We send money to Bazil to drill offshore there then we buy it from them. HUH? What kind of logic is that to anyone except an environmentalist?

Which is total bullsh**, just more examples of conservative lies. The US Export-Import Bank provided financing to Brazil to purchase US MADE drilling equipment which created more jobs in the US for US workers. The Export-Import bank does not receive taxpayer funding but actually turns a profit as well as creating JOBS in the US.

Why do you hate jobs in the US so much?

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

BadgerKustoms wrote: Archer, I believe he's saying that Republicans, (or at least Perry), are opting for domestic oil producers rather than continuing business in the Middle East. Personally I think that's a good idea, we can produce our own, so why haven't we?




Badger

Perfect exapmle. We send money to Bazil to drill offshore there then we buy it from them. HUH? What kind of logic is that to anyone except an environmentalist?

Which is total bullsh**, just more examples of conservative lies. The US Export-Import Bank provided financing to Brazil to purchase US MADE drilling equipment which created more jobs in the US for US workers. The Export-Import bank does not receive taxpayer funding but actually turns a profit as well as creating JOBS in the US.

Why do you hate jobs in the US so much?

Nice try. How much of that oil do we get to export and get paid for? Or are we having to pay for importing it again with higher costs to all Americans?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

BadgerKustoms wrote: Archer, I believe he's saying that Republicans, (or at least Perry), are opting for domestic oil producers rather than continuing business in the Middle East. Personally I think that's a good idea, we can produce our own, so why haven't we?




Badger

Perfect exapmle. We send money to Bazil to drill offshore there then we buy it from them. HUH? What kind of logic is that to anyone except an environmentalist?

Which is total bullsh**, just more examples of conservative lies. The US Export-Import Bank provided financing to Brazil to purchase US MADE drilling equipment which created more jobs in the US for US workers. The Export-Import bank does not receive taxpayer funding but actually turns a profit as well as creating JOBS in the US.

Why do you hate jobs in the US so much?

Nice try. How much of that oil do we get to export and get paid for? Or are we having to pay for importing it again with higher costs to all Americans?

So you are saying that the Bank should not finance US built products for foreign export? Your original statement was a flat out lie, so I am trying to understand why your panties are in such a twist. The US has not financed any drilling by Brazil. The Export-Import bank did finance the purchase of US built products which created US jobs, and for which the bank received considerable interest and profits. Is that such a bad thing? Or are you implying that we should refuse to export goods to foreign countries and kill off even more jobs in the US? I just don't understand your objection to the sale of US built goods to foreign countries. It seems to me that the more products we can sell, the more jobs that can be created here in the US which can only help the economy. Again, why do you hate jobs in the US?

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

BadgerKustoms wrote: Archer, I believe he's saying that Republicans, (or at least Perry), are opting for domestic oil producers rather than continuing business in the Middle East. Personally I think that's a good idea, we can produce our own, so why haven't we?




Badger

Perfect exapmle. We send money to Bazil to drill offshore there then we buy it from them. HUH? What kind of logic is that to anyone except an environmentalist?

Which is total bullsh**, just more examples of conservative lies. The US Export-Import Bank provided financing to Brazil to purchase US MADE drilling equipment which created more jobs in the US for US workers. The Export-Import bank does not receive taxpayer funding but actually turns a profit as well as creating JOBS in the US.

Why do you hate jobs in the US so much?

Nice try. How much of that oil do we get to export and get paid for? Or are we having to pay for importing it again with higher costs to all Americans?

So you are saying that the Bank should not finance US built products for foreign export? Your original statement was a flat out lie, so I am trying to understand why your panties are in such a twist. The US has not financed any drilling by Brazil. The Export-Import bank did finance the purchase of US built products which created US jobs, and for which the bank received considerable interest and profits. Is that such a bad thing? Or are you implying that we should refuse to export goods to foreign countries and kill off even more jobs in the US? I just don't understand your objection to the sale of US built goods to foreign countries. It seems to me that the more products we can sell, the more jobs that can be created here in the US which can only help the economy. Again, why do you hate jobs in the US?

OK, you know that is just a stupid question. SO who does the oil belong to where they are drilling? And who gets to sell it?

Science Chic wrote: Here's the problem with the assumption that increasing domestic oil or coal production will somehow "get us off Middle East oil" or "lower our energy prices" - oil and coal are world-wide traded commodities. The prices of that commodity on the world market, no matter what its source, are controlled from a world-wide standpoint. What little we could produce will be a drop in that bucket and not affect prices. Sure, we can make money off of selling it, but it won't be kept here, nor will it directly reduce our prices.
An Export in Solid Supply
Supply: Non-OPEC
What Drives Crude Oil Prices?

Let me tell you something you may or may not know. We sit on one of the biggest coal deposits in the world. Do you think we exclusively use it for ourselves, thus keeping our prices low b/c we don't have to ship it far? No. Coal dug up in WY increasingly is getting exported. Where do we get some of the coal that we burn? Australia! Why, cuz it's cheaper, even after shipping. We could dig up the entire state of WY and it won't make a dent in the energy costs each American family pays right now. Jobs? Yes, but but I've posted information before showing that there are more jobs created for renewable energy production and implementation than fossil fuel production, so it makes more sense, if you want to create jobs, to focus on alternative energy implementation.

The Viking wrote: How much of that oil do we get to export and get paid for? Or are we having to pay for importing it again with higher costs to all Americans?

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/inde ... il_imports
Oil Imports and Exports

In 2010, only about 18% of our crude oil and petroleum product net imports came from the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Our five biggest sources of net crude oil and petroleum product imports were:

Canada (25%)
Saudi Arabia (12%)
Nigeria (11%)
Venezuela (10%)
Mexico (9%)

Because the United States is the world’s largest oil importer, it may seem surprising that it also exports about 2 million barrels a day of oil, almost all of it in the form of refined petroleum products. Due to various logistical, regulatory, and quality considerations, it turns out that exporting some barrels and replacing them with additional imports is the most economic way to meet the market’s needs. For example, refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast region frequently find that it makes economic sense to export some of their gasoline to Mexico rather than shipping the product to the U.S. East Coast because lower-cost gasoline imports are available from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... dependence
United States energy independence

Though many American politicians have recently spoken out in favor of working toward energy independence, the discussion among proponents often overlooks the trade implications, focusing more on means and ends. It is rarely discussed whether the effort would be to make the United States into a net neutral/net exporter of energy, wherein the U.S. would produce and consume equivalent or less energy than it produces, or instead to make the United States completely self-feeding, wherein U.S. consumers would purchase energy solely from U.S. producers, enforced by wide embargos/autarkies or tariffs. The conversation among proponents also often disregards macroeconomic factors, such as incentives for American companies to produce in other nations, which offer access to the other ¾ of global demand and an estimated 97% of global fossil fuel reserves.

Highlighting the difficulty of separating domestic and foreign oil sources, journalist Robert Bryce has stated that "the trends of energy interdependence are growing and are inexorable" and branded the idea of being able choose where your oil came from as "hogwash".

Critical perspectives of US energy independence argue that despite all popular political rhetoric, it is actually impossible and not beneficial to wean the country from all foreign energy sources. It may be best to rely on a broad and varied spectrum of global energy resources. Andy Grove argues that energy independence is a flawed and infeasible objective, particularly in a network of integrated global exchange. He suggests instead that the objective should be energy resilience: resilience goes hand in hand with adaptability, and it also is reflected in important market ideas like substitutability. In fact, resilience is one of the best features of market processes; the information transmission function of prices means that individual buyers and sellers can adapt to changes in supply and demand conditions in a decentralized way. His suggestion for how to increase the resilience of the U.S. energy economy is to shift use from petroleum to electricity (electrification), that is sticky and can be produced using multiple sources of energy, including renewables.

PV Systems Have Gotten Dirt Cheap
In many areas of the country, electricity from a photovoltaic system now costs less than electricity from the grid
Posted on Oct 25 2011 by Jesse Thompson

Something strange has happened to the price of photovoltaic (PV) systems in the last year. PV has gotten dirt cheap.

Now for 2011: the latest prices we've been getting for PV are $4,500 per kW before tax credits. It's dropped 45% since last year. A colleague who posts here, John Semmelhack, recently got a quote for a ground mounted 9 kW system of $4,100 per kW!

So now our system that makes us $5,200 of electricity costs us $4,500. See where we're going? PV is now cheaper than dirty electricity in our area. Why aren't we all crying this from the rooftops? This is a really big deal!

Let's try the math a different way: 1,300 kWH * 25 years = 32,500 kWH generated over the life of the panels. At $8,000 / kW, that's $8,000 / 32,500 kWH = $0.25 / kWH, 53% more expensive than dirty electricity, but good for the planet.

That's been our sales pitch: virtuous, but not for everyone. But $4,500 / 32,500 kWH = $0.14 / kWH, which is 15% cheaper than dirty electricity. PV is the cheapest electricity you can buy in our area — before you take tax credits into account!

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

BadgerKustoms wrote: Archer, I believe he's saying that Republicans, (or at least Perry), are opting for domestic oil producers rather than continuing business in the Middle East. Personally I think that's a good idea, we can produce our own, so why haven't we?




Badger

Perfect exapmle. We send money to Bazil to drill offshore there then we buy it from them. HUH? What kind of logic is that to anyone except an environmentalist?

Which is total bullsh**, just more examples of conservative lies. The US Export-Import Bank provided financing to Brazil to purchase US MADE drilling equipment which created more jobs in the US for US workers. The Export-Import bank does not receive taxpayer funding but actually turns a profit as well as creating JOBS in the US.

Why do you hate jobs in the US so much?

Nice try. How much of that oil do we get to export and get paid for? Or are we having to pay for importing it again with higher costs to all Americans?

So you are saying that the Bank should not finance US built products for foreign export? Your original statement was a flat out lie, so I am trying to understand why your panties are in such a twist. The US has not financed any drilling by Brazil. The Export-Import bank did finance the purchase of US built products which created US jobs, and for which the bank received considerable interest and profits. Is that such a bad thing? Or are you implying that we should refuse to export goods to foreign countries and kill off even more jobs in the US? I just don't understand your objection to the sale of US built goods to foreign countries. It seems to me that the more products we can sell, the more jobs that can be created here in the US which can only help the economy. Again, why do you hate jobs in the US?

OK, you know that is just a stupid question. SO who does the oil belong to where they are drilling? And who gets to sell it?

Since they are drilling off their coastal territories, with equipment that they own, with workers they are paying, it would be logical that they own it and they may consume it or sell it as they see fit. Why do you maintain that the US should own that oil, when we do not own the rights to it, and do not pay for drilling it? Or are you pushing a socialist regime that the US should get a share of everything produced by others?

Science Chic wrote: Here's the problem with the assumption that increasing domestic oil or coal production will somehow "get us off Middle East oil" or "lower our energy prices" - oil and coal are world-wide traded commodities. The prices of that commodity on the world market, no matter what its source, are controlled from a world-wide standpoint. What little we could produce will be a drop in that bucket and not affect prices. Sure, we can make money off of selling it, but it won't be kept here, nor will it directly reduce our prices.
An Export in Solid Supply
Supply: Non-OPEC
What Drives Crude Oil Prices?

Let me tell you something you may or may not know. We sit on one of the biggest coal deposits in the world. Do you think we exclusively use it for ourselves, thus keeping our prices low b/c we don't have to ship it far? No. Coal dug up in WY increasingly is getting exported. Where do we get some of the coal that we burn? Australia! Why, cuz it's cheaper, even after shipping. We could dig up the entire state of WY and it won't make a dent in the energy costs each American family pays right now. Jobs? Yes, but but I've posted information before showing that there are more jobs created for renewable energy production and implementation than fossil fuel production, so it makes more sense, if you want to create jobs, to focus on alternative energy implementation.

The Viking wrote: How much of that oil do we get to export and get paid for? Or are we having to pay for importing it again with higher costs to all Americans?

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/inde ... il_imports
Oil Imports and Exports

In 2010, only about 18% of our crude oil and petroleum product net imports came from the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Our five biggest sources of net crude oil and petroleum product imports were:

Canada (25%)
Saudi Arabia (12%)
Nigeria (11%)
Venezuela (10%)
Mexico (9%)

Because the United States is the world’s largest oil importer, it may seem surprising that it also exports about 2 million barrels a day of oil, almost all of it in the form of refined petroleum products. Due to various logistical, regulatory, and quality considerations, it turns out that exporting some barrels and replacing them with additional imports is the most economic way to meet the market’s needs. For example, refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast region frequently find that it makes economic sense to export some of their gasoline to Mexico rather than shipping the product to the U.S. East Coast because lower-cost gasoline imports are available from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... dependence
United States energy independence

Though many American politicians have recently spoken out in favor of working toward energy independence, the discussion among proponents often overlooks the trade implications, focusing more on means and ends. It is rarely discussed whether the effort would be to make the United States into a net neutral/net exporter of energy, wherein the U.S. would produce and consume equivalent or less energy than it produces, or instead to make the United States completely self-feeding, wherein U.S. consumers would purchase energy solely from U.S. producers, enforced by wide embargos/autarkies or tariffs. The conversation among proponents also often disregards macroeconomic factors, such as incentives for American companies to produce in other nations, which offer access to the other ¾ of global demand and an estimated 97% of global fossil fuel reserves.

Highlighting the difficulty of separating domestic and foreign oil sources, journalist Robert Bryce has stated that "the trends of energy interdependence are growing and are inexorable" and branded the idea of being able choose where your oil came from as "hogwash".

Critical perspectives of US energy independence argue that despite all popular political rhetoric, it is actually impossible and not beneficial to wean the country from all foreign energy sources. It may be best to rely on a broad and varied spectrum of global energy resources. Andy Grove argues that energy independence is a flawed and infeasible objective, particularly in a network of integrated global exchange. He suggests instead that the objective should be energy resilience: resilience goes hand in hand with adaptability, and it also is reflected in important market ideas like substitutability. In fact, resilience is one of the best features of market processes; the information transmission function of prices means that individual buyers and sellers can adapt to changes in supply and demand conditions in a decentralized way. His suggestion for how to increase the resilience of the U.S. energy economy is to shift use from petroleum to electricity (electrification), that is sticky and can be produced using multiple sources of energy, including renewables.

Science Chic wrote: Here's the problem with the assumption that increasing domestic oil or coal production will somehow "get us off Middle East oil" or "lower our energy prices"....