home

Morning In Obama's America

Bob Shrum:

Morning in Obama's America The president sounds like Reagan. His opponents have a bad case of malaise

State of the Union addresses are often a wash; the one Obama delivered this week was a watershed. The evening produced two visions, one hopeful, the other infused with fear; one delivered from high ground, the other emerging from a low bog of grievance, gloom, and doom. The events of the coming months and the direction of the 2012 campaign will be shaped by the terrain that each camp has claimed.

The American people get it. The Republicans don't. In their downbeat responses, the official one and the Tea Party artifact, Representative Paul Ryan and his Palindrone colleague Michele Bachmann in effect renounced Reagan's optimism and darkly warned that the country's best days may be behind us.

Does current reality intrude on this perception? Today, the Commerce Department announced that the economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.2% in the 4th quarter of 2010:

The United States economy sped up its growth rate in the fourth quarter, though slightly less than expected, chiefly on the backs of revitalized consumers and a narrowed trade deficit.

Gross domestic product, a broad measure of all the goods and services produced by the economy, grew at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, up from 2.6 percent in the previous period, according to the Commerce Department.

In 1983, after 2 years of deep recession, the GDP grew by nearly 8%. By November 1984, the jobless rate fell from 10.8% in December 1982, to 7.4%. Consider this:

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that the economy would grow 3.1 percent in 2011, a figure echoed by many Wall Street economists. While that growth rate would be faster than last year’s, it is still likely not robust enough to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate, which stood at 9.4 percent in December. In the couple of years before the Great Recession, which began in December 2007, the American jobless rate was less than half that.

“We’re still very much below the output growth rate needed to absorb the slack in labor market,” said Prajakta Bhide, a research analyst for the United States economy at Roubini Global Economics. “We’re expecting to end the year with an unemployment rate of 9 percent.”

Also consider this story from last year, January 2010:

The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of 2009, the government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the nation will avoid a dip back into recession. The growth spurt in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, was the largest in six years.

[. . .] "We can now say that this is a sustainable recovery," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "It's certainly not a boom, but it is a slow, steady recovery."

[. . .] The big question now is how long it will take the growth in output, which began over the summer, to lead to significant job creation. Forecasters are expecting job growth to begin this spring, perhaps by February or March. The employment numbers early in the year will get a boost from temporary hiring for the once-a-decade census.

I assume you all remember Recovery Summer. In the end, the "Morning in Obama's America" theme is dependent on Republicans being right about the efficacy of tax cuts for spurring economic growth in this zero bound economy:

The payroll tax cut and the extension of the Bush tax cuts that were passed in December are expected to further buoy consumer spending in 2011.

Morning in Obama's America is dependent on Reaganomics in the end.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Morning in Obama's America (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:41:19 AM EST
    "revitalized consumers" (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    Even as jobs are frozen, decreasing, and/or disappearing, and foreclosures are staring at another record year:

    I swear, if the American people were taken hostage and kept in captivity for 20 years, upon their release they would first rush to "The Mall," and then home to be with their families.

    Madison Ave has done a miraculous job.

    The only net tax cut (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    is the 2% FICA holiday. The rest are just the continuation of the tax rates as they have been for the last 10 years.

    If that is enough to truly stimulate the economy, they might even turn ME into a tax cut advocate.

    But it's not going to happen.

    The 2% solution should be stimulative ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:53:37 AM EST
    OTBE. There's at least a big bang for the buck there. But other things are very much unequal if we get massive spending cuts in public programs.

    Parent
    Layoffs, plus if your wages are frozen that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    2% is just keeping you up with the cost of living.

    Parent
    True, a payroll holiday (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    has limited value for those with no paycheck.

    Parent
    And wait (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    Until this time next year, when that "tax holiday" expires and people's checks are a bit smaller than this year.

    Parent
    Yes, but it has the (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    advantage of blaming social security for contributing to the deficit and helping in the manufacture of its crisis.

    Parent
    bingo (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    That cut in FICA withholding (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    is another bit of evidence that Obama has no understanding of the critical role Social Security plays in our society.

    I really don't believe he has any will to resist cuts.

    Parent

    I think that Wall St has informed (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    him as to the benefits they would have if they could get their hands on those funds. The sooner that they can make a better case that the program is in crisis, they sooner they will meet their objectives.

    Not real sure that Obama cares what role it plays in our society.

    Parent

    Yes, and then watch for (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    the rapid change in talking points.  Those  worthless pieces of paper that comprise the Trust Fund's cumulative excess of taxes over benefits that used to be only IOU's, that formerly had no meaning, that have been spent, that add to the debt or deficit or whatever....will suddenly be transformed into solid US Treasury securities that have the full faith and credit of the US government. To even think otherwise would have Alexander Hamilton rolling over in his grave!  The world bond market would crash.  

    The stock market is safer, it may fluctuate, but over time it evens out. Let us have that $2.7 trillion to "invest" before it is all given out in benefits. This is the time to act while the stock market is up..oops, but don't retire on a day that there are riots in the Arab streets.

    Parent

    Morning in America (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    But what TIME in the morning.  For many, it feels like 2:30 am, when you're drunk and tired and lying in bed with bed spins and it feels like everything is about to crash in on you.

    sounding more like (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    Reagans MIA all the time

    Parent
    Part of the 4th quarter "growth" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    was due to what I call "frugality fatigue".  After many years of frugal Christmases, people spent more than usual this year.  However, economists considered this spending an anomaly, rather than a sign that things were changing.  They didn't expect it to continue....

    That's how I see it too (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    Also people taking advantage of the sale prices. We'll see, I guess. I do see more evidence of consumer goods trash at the curb lately on trash day. green shoots.

    Parent
    May I suggest... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    a soundtrack for Morning in Obama's America?

    Orange Juice Blues (Blues for Breakfast)

    I had a hard time waking this morning
    I got a lotta things on my mind
    Like those friends of yours
    They keep bringing me down
    Just hangin' round all the time

    Why don't you get right, try to get right, baby
    You haven't been right with me, why don't you get right?
    Try and get right, baby, don't you remember how it used to be?




    So (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    all the people who were worried when Obama praised Reagan way back when were right to be concerned I guess.

    Please, I lived through the 80's and they were NOT a picnic. Give me back the 90's any day. I'll take peace and prosperity any day over war and depression.

    The one good thing about Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TJBuff on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    is he only started wars with pushovers.  Over quick.

    Parent
    "pushovers?" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    Like the Democrats; Bingo

    Parent
    It's been a very long (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    while since Bob Shrum has had a Dem in the WH with whom he was sympatico, so he's probably a little more enthusiastic about this Dem than he normally would be and the objective circumstances would dictate.  He had a falling out with Bill Clinton, telling tales about him behind his back accd'g to Bill, and was only brought in once in Clinton's 8 yrs to help write a speech.  

    With Carter, Shrum lasted only a few weeks as a speechwriter, quitting during the campaign when he came to the conclusion that Jimmy didn't seem to stand for anything.  

    Now with Obama, who has the double virtue of being endorsed by Shrum's long-time boss Teddy K and of having defeated a Clinton, Shrum is and has always been fully on board with the O program.

    Shrum is smart and can be very persuasive, and at times reading one of his glowing tributes to Obama I feel like maybe he's right and I've been too much of a nattering nabob of negativism towards this president.

    Makes me almost want to sing out one of my favorite presidential ditties:

    I'm feeling good about America.

    I'm feeling good about me.


    Truly amazing (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    that Shrum hasn't got it that Obama doesn't stand for anything.

    Well, I'm off here.  He likes to make rich people happy.

    Parent

    Well my sense is that (none / 0) (#59)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    Shrum is actually a lot more populist than most might suspect.  And he grew up, iirc, in a middle- or working-class neighborhood in SoCal (Culver City) which has long served to provide the workers for the MGM studio.  That famous speech Teddy gave at the 1980 convention -- that was all Shrum, and from the heart.

    Nah, I think it's that it's been so long for Shrummie being on the outside when a Dem has been in the WH, he's tired of that, wants to be a player finally, and with Obama he has his chance.  And after 50 yrs or so of being sort of in the wilderness, he's not going to let a little Wall Street dominance in this administration get in the way of his devotion to the Obama cause.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 05:49:54 PM EST
    But a hell of a price to pay for vanity.

    Parent
    I've been feeling this way too sometimes (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    Shrum is smart and can be very persuasive, and at times reading one of his glowing tributes to Obama I feel like maybe he's right and I've been too much of a nattering nabob of negativism towards this president.

    And scanning TV stations last night I happened across Oprah's show with injured troops and Michelle Obama, and realized that I really like Michelle in action as first lady.

    In all I do hope Obama is right about all this stuff. Maybe I worry too much.

    Then I look at the reality of what I see around me and I don't like the wars, the economy, and the civil liberty violations. What else is there?

    Parent

    I've got it now: (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:39:21 PM EST
    it's the Lake Wobegon Method, a riff on where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average," only in this case it's all about the economy...or whatever else it is the president needs to hit with the Magical Thinking Wand.

    Keep saying it, maybe it will be true one day, right?  The self-fulfilling prophecy of messaging.

    Every morning in America, millions still wake up with no job and no prospects for one after years of searching, and with no unemployment to help even a little.  Every morning in America, millions wake up wondering if today is the day they will lose their home.  Millions still wake up every morning in America without access to affordable health care, and wonder if this is the day they have a diabetic crisis they can't afford to treat, a heart attack that will lead to them losing their job.  If this is the day their kid wakes up sick...again.

    "America" is not the top 1%, whose worries are not about how they are going to afford things that millions of people only wish were not keeping them up at night: keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs.

    "Morning in America" my a$$.

    [oh, and BTD, I think you are missing a couple of "blockquote" tags, since what I am seeing is formatted to look as if everything that is captured in your second quote is from the NYT]


    but but (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:42:15 AM EST
    this morning on Joe they were all "if the economy could just keep growing at this pace it would be wonderful"

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:43:01 AM EST
    it wouldn't be great.

    Parent
    I kinda thought (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:43:58 AM EST
    you would say that

    Parent
    It sure won't feel like morning (none / 0) (#5)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:53:43 AM EST
    ... if the cuts in public services increase as promised. It's kind of hard to celebrate the sunrise while we're slashing spending on all kinds of things that people take for granted and telling them 'We just can't afford it'.

    In the Details (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Maven on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:18:50 AM EST
    of the announcement regarding GDP:  federal government spending declined by 0.2%, while state and local government spending fell by 0.9%.  I would imagine that these declines will almost certainly continue -- if not accelerate -- over the coming quarters.

    And since the biggest component of today's overall rise in GDP was a sizable jump in consumer spending (presumably based on an increase in household debt taken on), it should only be a matter of time before the dissonance between the calls for government austerity and those encouraging individual spending become too apparent for anyone to ignore . . . but then, there are a lot of folks out there whose livelihood depends on keeping people from making this connection.

    Parent

    The Carriage Trades (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    People need to reinvent themselves to offer goods and services that are appealing to those whose income is still growing. We could see a true renaissance of domestic service as a profession!

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    I feel we're not far from that revolting situation.

    Parent
    Would Reagan have okayed (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    assassinations of US citizens without any due process?
    Yeah, Obama sounds like Reagan, in terms of his caveman economics, but since he got Cheney's stamp of approval on his foreign policy, I'd have to say  he has the edge on Reagan there.


    sure (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    he would have

    Parent
    Farmed out to Salvador, Israel, or Guatemala, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    among others. Plausible deniability.

    Parent
    Yes, genocide in Guatemala (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    Special Forces assassinations in El Salvador.

    Parent
    In a heartbeat (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    In secret, but I don't think he (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    could have made public announcements to that effect without repercussions.
    BTW, why do people give Obama credit for stopping torture? I give him credit for saying it has stopped, nothing more.

    Parent
    Thank you! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    AFAIK, it demonstrably is still going on at Bagram Air Force Base. And that doesn't even get into the institutionalized torture that is a routine part of our prison systems, to say nothing of the special doses dealt out to troublesome subjects such as Bradley Manning.

    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:32:34 AM EST
    its preferable to NOT admit it?

    Parent
    Reagan would have probably (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:36:42 AM EST
    nuked Yemen by by now, so yes.

    Parent
    personally (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    it a president feels he has to do something like that I think its far better to have one who tells us he is doing it so at least we have the option of deciding what we think and what we do about it.

    I agree Reagan would NEVER have done that.  

    Parent

    Of course he would not have (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:45:59 AM EST
    He and Cap Weinberger would have had the operation carried out and told us about it afterward in a very moving Oval Office Address asserting America's greatness and right to do anything we see fit. We think Bush exploited 9/11 - his communications office were pikers compared to Reagan's. Given the context of the War on Terra, Reagan would have gone at least as far as Bush-Cheney.

    Parent
    Comparing 2011 to 1982/83 (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    is useless.

    The situation is not the same and the results will not be the same.

    Specifically the de facto tax of very high energy costs will prevent a recovery of any significance. Obama's EPA closing down coal mines and Obama's desire to remove tax credits for oil exploration and drilling, if enacted, will further push the economy into the Depression range.

    So the high price of energy won't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    spur oil exploration and drilling if there are not tax credits available also? Well I guess if they don't want to take advantage of the hot market for energy that is their business decision. I never believed it was really a market driven industry anyway.

    Parent
    Re Energy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:15:33 AM EST

    SINGAPORE (Dow Jones)--Nymex crude oil futures in Asia were lower Friday, extending losses from earlier in U.S. trading, but Brent crude prices rose, widening the spread between the two grades to more than $12 a barrel.

    "We're in unprecedented territory with this wide spread," said Victor Shum, an analyst at Purvin & Gertz in Singapore, adding that it wasn't sustainable in the long term and will likely narrow. The typical spread is around $2 a barrel.

    ........................................

    Money managers trimmed their net long positions in Nymex crude by 2.3% but raised their net long positions in Brent crude in the week ended Jan. 18, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    K"At existing levels, the spread represents regional disparities, transportation costs, Cushing fullness, U.S. maintenance turnarounds and a whole universe of frenzied speculative investor insanity," said Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover, in a note.

    "Oil prices are just too over-extended on the upside, over the longer term, for them to advance much higher without a corrective move lower first," he added.



    Click or WSJ Me

    Ruffian, you don't understand, they need that encouragement even when there's thousands of acres that are already open to drilling in this country, it's better to stick with fossil fuel and let the Chinese eat our lunch in other ways:

    For an indication of whether China or the U.S. will lead the way in alternative energy capacity like windmills, it helps to check which way the wind is blowing - in Washington.

    Last year China pulled ahead of the U.S. in installed wind power generating capacity, holding a margin of about 4%, according to figures published this month by industry associations in each country.

    Policies in Washington may dictate how long China's reign sustains. President Barack Obama is widely expected to ask Congress to fund renewable energy programs during this week's State of the Union address. A significant, and consistent, push from Washington to support renewables--a major portion of which would inevitably come from wind-could be enough to erase China's slim lead.

    China had momentum last year, lifting wind power installations 62% by adding some 16,000 megawatts worth of windmill turbine power, for total installation of 41,800 megawatts, the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association, or CREIA, said in a joint press release with Greenpeace.

    "This is definitely a milestone in the history of China's clean energy development. China won this round in the global race for a green future, proving that it has the potential to become a world superpower in renewable energy," said Yang Ailun, head of Greenpeace East Asia's climate and energy campaign in a Jan. 12 statement.



    Click or WSJ Me

    But, according to PPJ, renewable energy is for suckers............

    Parent

    If they would only realize they can still (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    speculate on the amount of wind and sun that will be available in the coming years. Should be very volatile, what with all the climate change.

    Parent
    No Harry, facts speak (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    In its first action to overturn Bush administration policies on energy, the Obama administration on Wednesday said it will cancel oil drilling leases on more than 130,000 acres near two national parks and other protected areas in Utah

    First we had the above and then we had the Gulf shutdown.

    In the meantime, this years old problem remains.

    But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol's books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol's portfolio -- at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.

    The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators.

    Link

    We are building a perfect plan on how to destroy our economy.

    Harry, your claim that I think renewable energy is for suckers is false, and you know it is false. Yet you make it as a personal attack.

    I ask this question.

    Why not a Manhattan Project to develop wind/power/nuke/other power?

    And at the sane time...

    A D-Day action to provide us the cheap energy that we must have today for our economy to function?

    It is not an either or.

    Parent

    Suckers (none / 0) (#53)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    Harry, your claim that I think renewable energy is for suckers is false, and you know it is false. Yet you make it as a personal attack.

    I ask this question.

    Why not a Manhattan Project to develop wind/power/nuke/other power?

    Funny, you coulda fooled me 2 years ago:

       

    He repeated the challenge he issued to the country on Thursday to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years. And he called on the bloggers to help achieve that goal, saying they were on the leading edge of reclaiming democracy for the grass roots.

    "He" was, of course, was Pope Algore. He of stupidity worshipped and tall tales.

        Mr. Gore, later answering questions from the audience, said he would not accept a role in the next administration. The best use of his talent and experience, he said, is "to focus on trying to enlarge the political space" within which politicians can address the climate crisis.

    Uh, PopeEEEE.... First Hussein has to win... And then you have to be asked. And just in case the American people are as stupid as they act sometime and elect his Holiness of Chicago, there is no way he will share the spotlight with another wacked out politician dummy who can't spell science but who now makes forecasts..

        When Mr. Gore addressed the group, he noted first that the polar ice cap, which is about the size of the continental United States and has been in existence for three million years, had a 75 percent to 80 percent chance of melting in five years.

    And then you go on to say that perhaps you're agreeing with Glenn Beck.

    Facts be facts here, PPJ.

    Click or Cotton Me

    Parent

    Your rant (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    proves nothing.

    Noting how I felt about Gore and Obama has nothing to do with what I wrote about wind/solar et al.

    You just continue to have this Jones for me and stalk me.

    Parent

    Nice passive-agressive move, PPJ (none / 0) (#75)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    If I answer, I'm stalking you, if I don't, then you must know what you're talking about.

    "Is this operation honest?"

    "As honest as sunshine."

    "When do you open?"

    "After dark."

    Thanks for the feedback, as always, PPJ.

    Parent

    Oil shale leases near national parks (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    in Utah and offshore leases have nothing to do with current supply.  

    Any drop in the bucket such leases would provide is years and years away....

    It is just oil company propaganda....

    Parent

    Thank you very much. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Ah yes, the old (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    we shouldn't start because it is a long journey.

    Glad Columbus didn't have that attitude.

    And the psychological effect is obvious.

    Parent

    More like getting blood from a turnip (none / 0) (#90)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    in terms of the overall need.

    It's like feeding a family of four, and saying that an extra cup of milk a week will make a difference.

    Parent

    Taxes are a cost (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    If they lose the credits they will pass the costs on to the consumer.

    Say hello $7.00 gasoline and tripled electric utility bills.

    Parent

    I'm sick (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    of being held hostage by these jokers. Maybe high prices if that happens will finally spur people to get rid of their dependency on these jokers.

    Parent
    I'm sick too (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:13:36 AM EST
    But I don't see cutting my throat to spite them as a viable option.

    See my comments to Harry.

    Parent

    How are you (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    slitting your throat? If you don't stand up and instead cave like you are willing to do, you are forever going to be held hostage. They kidnappers have taken your child and you're going to hand then over the money.

    Parent
    Explain to me why (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    destroying the economy to spite OPEC and the speculators is rational.

    Note my comment that we should do two things.

    1. A Manhattan Project on wind/solar et al.

    2. A D Day event to provide cheap oil until the Manhattan project produces results.


    Parent
    But that's (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    never going to happen as long as we continue to coddle the oil industry. Until we all stand up to them and say enough! they are going to continue to shoot out propaganda against alternative energy and do everything in their power to stop alternative energy from happening.

    Parent
    Why?? (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    I think there is plenty of support for a Manhattan Project activity for alternative energy sources

    IF

    at the same time we start a D Day type action to procure cheap oil.

    That is a win win for everyone except the oil companies and OPEC.

    Parent

    As long (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    as there is cheap oil, there will never be the incentive to do anything else.

    And maybe if gas got more expensive, people would be forced to make some choices. Here after Hurricane Katrina happened and the pipe lines were operating well below capacity, people were STILL driving like there was no tomorrow so I don't see having cheap oil as doing anything but keeping us dependent on oil. If you keep giving a heroin addict heroin, is he ever going to get off it?

    Parent

    The Manhattan Project was (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    a government project and it didn't force people to choose between anything.

    Same here. Have the government develop the replacement for gasoline, which would be available at the same price or +/- 10% and then start jacking up the prices via taxes.

    Parent

    Define (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    "D Day event to provide cheap oil until the Manhattan project produces results"

    Parent
    Oh, let's see (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 06:58:40 PM EST
    Make public land/sea available for lease. Make the oil companies drill or lose the lease... Make speculators take delivery on oil futures.. Build some more refineries...

    I think you get the drift.

    Parent

    Several (none / 0) (#99)
    by Raskolnikov on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 07:09:17 PM EST
    not bad points.  It would make sense to require speculators to actually be able to make delivery to force out purely financial interests.  Use it or lose it would make sense politically as regards land leases.  And I agree the refinery situation is as ridiculous as the Nuclear power plant situation in the US.  One of the negative aspects of the otherwise positive environmental movement in the US in my opinion.  Nuclear power is very expensive, and needs a lot of government help to be a viable alternative, but it isn't going to get any cheaper if we don't work to develop it.  Sure, the waste is extraordinarily toxic, but at least we can contain it and work out ways in the future to better dispose of it.  Its better than spewing out tons and tons of exhaust from coal and natural gas plants from an environmental standpoint, and until we build an infrastructure to support renewables (ha!) its our best stop-gap option.

    Parent
    Build more refineries, why? (none / 0) (#100)
    by me only on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 07:40:32 PM EST
    Hovensa is locking out 150,000 BPSD.

    Sunoco closed Eagle Point (another 150,000 BPSD).

    Western closed Bloomfield (about 16,800 BPSD).

    Western closed Yorktown (about 58,600 BPSD).

    Parent

    Were they closed (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:57:24 PM EST
    because the cost of EPA rules ruled out repair and upgrade??

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#106)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:29:25 PM EST

    WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 28 -- Hovensa LLC, which operates the nation's second-largest refinery, agreed to pay a $5.375 million fine and spend more than $700 million to resolve charges that its 525,000-b/cd facility at St. Croix, US Virgin Islands, violated the federal Clean Air Act, the US Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency jointly announced on Jan. 26.

    A consent decree for the settlement was filed in US District Court for the Virgin Islands and will be subject to public comment and court approval for 30 days.

    DOJ and EPA said that the settlement requires new and upgraded pollution controls, more stringent emission limits and aggressive monitoring, leak-detection, and repair practices to reduce emissions from refinery equipment and process units. The refinery is operated by Hovensa, a joint venture of Hess Corp. and Venzuela's Petroleos de Venezuela SA.

    The government's complaint, filed concurrently with the settlement, alleged that the company made modified the refinery in ways which increased emissions without first obtaining preconstruction permits and installing required pollution control equipment. It noted that the CAA requires major air pollution sources to obtain such permits before making changes that would result in a significant emissions increase of any pollutant.

    DOJ and EPA said that once they are fully implemented, the pollution controls required by the settlement will reduce nitrogen oxide emission by an estimated more than 5,000 tons/year and sulfur dioxide emissions by nearly 3,500 tons/year. They said that the settlement also will result in additional reductions of volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants that affect air quality. Additional pollution-reducing projects at the refinery's coking unit under the settlement will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6,100 tons/year, they added.

    From Oil and Gas Journal

    Click or Pollute Me

    Parent

    Nope what? (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    And a refinery in VI is germane to gasoline in CONUS?

    Really??

    Your comment doesn't answer the question.

    Parent

    You're asking (none / 0) (#111)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    about refinery capacity being down due to EPA activity, and this demonstrates that even with a polluter they don't shut down the refinery for safety problems, as you implied in your remark.

    When you're in a hole, PPJ, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

    Parent

    Why do some people ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    ... always phrase their accusations in the form of a question?  Is it because they're just speculating and have no evidence?

    What?

    I'm just "asking a question".

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#109)
    by me only on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    They are closed because demand is down.

    We have too much refining capacity for current demand.

    Parent

    How many leases (none / 0) (#50)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    are still in effect in the USA and not being used, PPJ?

    Could you use your amazing skills to answer that question?

     and why do you want to sell our national heritage for some measly oil leases?:

    The 77 leases were for areas near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon, which is sometimes called the world's longest art gallery for its collection of ancient rock-art panels.

    ..................................

    The Interior Department said it was able to scrap the leases because the BLM had not yet formally accepted them.

    Sure, PPJ, blame Obama(or Obamie, as you used to call him) because Bush didn't feel that nailing down our energy independence was important.

    You're certainly demonstrating your social liberal credentials, blaming a centrist because you don't want your conservative buddies to get mad at you if you dare to tell the truth............

    As for your 2 year old article, it demonstrates a lame-duck Administration approach to things that is one of the few things Obama must not emulate if he wants to win in 2012.

    I didn't see anything in the WSJ saying that speculators are responsible for the present situation, if you have something more recent to link to, that would be interesting.

    Thanks for the info.

    Parent

    Hpw many leases? (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    Fewer than what there were.

    And a clear message to the speculators was sent.

    Parent

    No, because if you care to read the article (none / 0) (#77)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    it wasn't leasable under the previous Administration, so it wasn't taken off the market, it was withheld from the market.

    BTW,  can you tell me how many productive oil shale operations there are in this country at the moment, and what % of our yearly use these acres would produce in the first place?

    Don't palm a card here, PPJ, it takes down the respectability of a place, as we say here in the New West.  :-)

    Thanks as always for the feedback.

    Parent

    The answer (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    is simple.

    Not enough because we haven't tired to.

    BTW - Quoting without attribution is a copy right NO NO.

    I forgive you this time.

    Parent

    As well you should (none / 0) (#89)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:58:46 PM EST
    seeing as I was quoting the original MSNBC article you linked to.

    ;-)

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 10:24:27 AM EST
    You also quoted me.

    Parent
    No, you quoted part of the article (none / 0) (#113)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 10:26:14 AM EST
    and I quotes parts you didn't recognize, and unless you wrote the article I wasn't "quoting you".

    Parent
    Don't parse words (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 11:58:44 AM EST
    you clearly quoted me.

    Parent
    Here's the link (none / 0) (#115)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    Link

    and here's what I quoted, so that you can see it was in the MSNBC article YOU QUOTED:

    The 77 leases were for areas near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon, which is sometimes called the world's longest art gallery for its collection of ancient rock-art panels.

    ..................................

    The Interior Department said it was able to scrap the leases because the BLM had not yet formally accepted them.

    You are unusually obtuse this morning, perhaps you should try Postum instead of your usual morning java brew  :-)

    Parent

    I quoted you without a link (none / 0) (#116)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    but anyone can use one of the sentences as a search string to find your original post if they wanted to.

    If you're so obtuse as to not realize that I did say I was quoting you originally, what does that say about you?

    Parent

    Here's the link to your screed (none / 0) (#117)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    from Tall Cotton:

    Click or Cotton Me

    Parent

    Yup -but if they thought they could (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    get $7 a gallon here, they would be doing it. Amazing how we find ways to cut our use here when the price gets high enough.

    Parent
    Depressions always cut usage (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    of gas, electric power, food, drugs.... you know all the unnecessary things of a modern society.

    Parent
    So, your point is that if we (none / 0) (#54)
    by my opinion on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    don't give the oil barons their welfare checks, they will punish us. What this pass the cost on directly to the consumer BS really means is that there is no competition and no free market.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:36:49 PM EST
    There is no free market.

    The question is, how much damage do you want to do to society to punish the bad guys.

    Parent

    Your response is a false choice. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by my opinion on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    No need to damage society.  

    Parent
    How will $7.00 gasoline (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    not damage society?

    A lot of us live where a car is a must.

    Parent

    You follow up a false (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by my opinion on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    choice response with circular logic. Both are fallacious arguments.

    Parent
    Interesting argument ... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    So we all should subsidize the private, oil companies (through special tax breaks) in order to artificially lower the price of gasoline, because "a lot of us live where a car is a must".

    From a guy who doesn't want to use federal funds to subsidize a public transportation project (LA to Las Vegas rail line) because he thinks the people of lower Alabama won't benefit from it.

    Huh.

    I guess if the price of gas were unsubsidized and the cost reflected its true costs, a lot of people would have to trade in their pickups and SUVs for something that gets better mileage.

    Parent

    Do you opine that $7.00 gasoline (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    won't destroy the economy??

    Parent
    Again this is a false choice. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by my opinion on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    What other real choice is there? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:58:47 PM EST
    It is not punishing them (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 02:08:31 PM EST
    It is making them use their own money to do their exploration, without tax subsidies. If their shareholders don't see that some of the profit has to be plowed back into the business in order for it to continue to be profitable, perhaps some re-education is in order.

    Parent
    Makes no difference (2.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    The tax credits are built into the business plan. Take them out and the corps will raise prices to meet profit targets.

    Re-education... Interesting choice of words.

    Now where have I heard that term before??? USSR? Vietnam? North Korea?

    Parent

    Let's let the market prevail then (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    and see what the free market price of gas really is. But to do that we would have to go back to outlawing the speculation in the oil market.

    Parent
    You would also (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    have to eliminate OPEC.

    Parent
    3% GDP will be the new good (none / 0) (#33)
    by TJBuff on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    and 9% unemployment will be the new normal.  It's not like the Obama admin has any other choice but PR at this late date.  I just think it has zero chance of working.

    3% growth would be good (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    in a non-recovering from a recession period.

    Coming in the recovery from a very severe recession, it is a poor result.

    Parent

    Why I think the propaganda won't work (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TJBuff on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    but it's not like they've got any other choice but to raise on a busted flush.

    Parent
    Morning? Like 1:30 am last call? (none / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    Put a cardigan on it, Shrum!

    It's not (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    morning. It's mourning.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#55)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    I hope Obama doesn't make the mistake of calling it "Morning in America" (or the like).  Media heads will yak for the next week about it but hopefully Obama doesn't take that tone.  Then again, the concept of recovery summer came and went, and it didn't negatively impact Obama's reputation AFAIK.

    It's not too farfetched (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    to see him using that old Reagan campaign line, given his apparent great respect for his presidency.  

    And not long ago, recall, with Jon Stewart he accidentally trotted out Bush's "heck of a job" howler in describing the fine work of aide Larry Summers.

    Also next week, the MSM wing of the GOP begins its weeklong or monthlong or yearlong lovefest of Ronnie and all things Reagan as they bring out their big guns and all the secondary media types who will be "encouraged" to participate to celebrate his 100th birthday on Feb 6.

    And don't forget to join Morning in America Joe and all his crew as they take their show west to the Reagan Library all week to commemorate the Contras' and Wall Street's favorite President.  Joe and Mika will be joined by special guests Tom Brokaw, who shares a birthdate with Reagan and will offer his usual objective analysis of the Gipper from his Greatest Generation perspective, as well as historian Doug Brinkley, editor of the recent "Reagan Diaries" who will speak for the historians and offer his unbiased perspective.

    Parent

    gawd thanks for the warning (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    it will be a tv-free zone that week at my house.

    Parent
    Recovery Summer (none / 0) (#58)
    by me only on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    I do not remember.

    Summer of 69, now that is worth remembering...

    Still I am surprised that you did not connect this with your earlier post about inequality.  If you actually believe that inequality is more important than poverty, the growth rate is immaterial.  Inequality has grown almost in a straight line for 30 years.  The only years it does not grow are significant stock market drop years.

    I too don't recall (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    any Recovery Summer.  Elke Summer, yes.

    Summer of Love?  Yes I recall that one.  1967.  Hippies dancing on LSD, Sgt Pepper, Monterey Pop Festival, kids trekking to SF with flowers in their hair, plenty of grooviness in the air.

    Summer of 69?  Okay.  A little more mixed bag when you think of it.

    Parent

    That was supposed to me an (none / 0) (#64)
    by me only on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    allusion to the Bryan Adams song, which has nothing to do with 1969.

    Parent
    (500) Days of Recovery Summer (none / 0) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 06:10:27 PM EST
    500 Days? (none / 0) (#101)
    by me only on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 07:41:46 PM EST
    What does this mean?

    Parent
    It seems TL people ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 12:07:58 AM EST
    aren't too up on their pop culture.  

    Click here for illumination.

    Parent

    I haven't been to a movie (none / 0) (#118)
    by me only on Sat Jan 29, 2011 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    in over five years.

    The last television I watched was Le Tour.  I watch the Super Bowl.  I have never looked at Facebook.

    Suffice it to say I can't stand 21st century pop culture.

    Parent

    yes yes. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    Elke Summer, yes.

    One of my favorite Summers.

    ...Yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will yes."


    Parent
    For $chrum$ Sell out DLC slimeball (none / 0) (#105)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    buddies, life is as wonderful as it was during the days of micheal milken and leveraged buyouts on working stiffs retirements ---

    speaking of milken - he must be feeling REAL diminished with that hedge fund dude cashing in on 5 BILLION with a 15% tax rate!!

    thanks enablers in the dim-0-crap party  -- at least palin's droolers are SUPPOSED to celebrate so much treasure dedicated to such parasitic endeavors!

    rmm