If the election was held today

Schneed10 · 09-12-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry

Statistically a Dem pres is always best for the economy. I just threw that out ther so that you guys know what to do during the elections 2 years from now, (Put some Reps. in Congress!) But you are correct in your thinking. You want a Dem Congress if you have a Rep President.

I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.

Schneed10 · 09-12-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The latest smear ad from the fish

McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.

Schneed10 · 09-12-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.

I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.

That Guy · 09-13-2008, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.

you're essentially right with how the leases work. the research the leases most likely to provided oil first, and they have a (flexible) budget for doing x leases per year, but some of those leases would cost more to research and drill than the potential oil needed to cover costs and meet their revenue targets.

the offshore stuff is appealing to them because they know with good certainty that the oil is there, and that there's enough of it to be worth setting rigs up immediately.

that said, the amount of oil there isn't amazing, but the intention to drill drives down the rampant oil speculation (see colbert for a GREAT piece on how that worked).

Mattyk · 09-13-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.

I just thought this latest smear was particularly troubling as McCain seems to be kicking up the smear ads to new levels. Or as factcheck.org states it:

Quote:

The new McCain-Palin ad "Disrespectful" begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception.

Are most people intelligent enough to look past this garbage from both sides? I hope so. But if it wasn't having an impact on someone, why are they doing it?

Here's some Obama mistruths too if it makes you feel better:

FactCheck.org: School Funding Misleads

dmek25 · 09-13-2008, 01:22 PM

i was always convinced the American people are way smarter then anyone in government gives them credit for. but after seeing the McCain camp skirt around the issues, and basically switch their campaign strategy in mid season. they have taken mud slinging to a new level. can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 09-13-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick?

McCain has been willing to depart from the party line on numerous occasions. That's why so many conservatives were so upset about McCain securing the nomination. He's shifted to the right since 2000, but he's still fairly independent minded as far as most politicians go. For her part, Palin repeatedly publicized the "wrongdoings" of fellow republicans in powerful positions. You can disagree with their politics and they are not totally independent minded by any means, but, as far as Washington goes, they are mavericks.

NM Redskin · 09-17-2008, 06:32 AM

Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick? A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.

KLHJ2 · 09-17-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.

I never said that any of them was a yes or no talking point. I fully agree that you have to delve deeper into each candidates theories to truly understand what his stance is on each issue. My posting of that nonsense was a blunder that I had already appologized for. No need to revisit that.

Personally I believe that we as a nation should tap into every fuel resource possible so that we are not overly dependant on a single one. In other words I do not mind if we drill for more oil, but we had better be also Building Nuclear power plants, setting up windmills, mining for coal, expanding usage of natural gas etc.etc.etc.

KLHJ2 · 09-17-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.

Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.

firstdown · 09-17-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry

Points taken. I understand that a President can lay out policies that can impact the country many years down the line. With that same frame of thought is it too farfetched to believe that somebody like Obama in office could better counter act the impact that "dumbass" had on the economy (primarily because of Iraq)?

Here is my point of view. The president sent out a stimulus check in an effort to boost the economy. Most, not all, thought that it was a pretty good idea. Even Obama was talking about doing something similar if he got into office.

Right now we have hundreds of thousands of Troops in Iraq that getting paid Separation pay and hazardous duty pay in conjunction with their base pay. On top of that, none of them are paying taxes while they are in the Combat zone. I am not hating because they do deserve this while they are there.

When these guys get back they usually have some extra cash to stimulate the economy with themselves. The problem is that they haven't been spending in the U.S. for an entire year, nor have they been paying taxes. In essence we have been forking out more money than necessary to finance something that is a heavier burden on the economy. I am not even going to go into detail about the .5 mil life insurance policies that each of the deceased families' collect.

We need to bring most of our Troops back and put some spenders and tax payers back on American soil. While both candidates say that they believe that we should start downsizing in Iraq. I belive that Obama has a bit more sense of urgency about it.

In no way am I saying that this by itself will fix our economy, but it will help.

The small amount of spending power our troops over in Iraq have will not help the US economy. It does have an effect on smaller areas like Norfolk Va. which feel the impact everytime a ship leaves port.

KLHJ2 · 09-17-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

The small amount of spending power our troops over in Iraq have will not help the US economy. It does have an effect on smaller areas like Norfolk Va. which feel the impact everytime a ship leaves port.

I would argue that it may not have a large impact, but it certainly does not help. Remember that every little bit counts.

If you go to the store 10 times and throw down just $100 to get some necessities you just went through a grand. It may not impact your financial spending at the time, but long term it gets expensive.

jsarno · 09-17-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NM Redskin

Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick? A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok.

How many times do people have to correct this before people listen? This is why there is political propaganda because people like NMredskin don't listen when the truth comes out, and they will believe any crap they see.

Since you've either clearly missed, or ignored it NMredskin, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time only 1 year out of the 8 Bush has been office. Wasn't even close in the other years. We won't even get into the massive percentage Obama has voted with his party lines. The left threw up some junk, and you bought it hook line and sinker.

That Guy · 09-17-2008, 02:36 PM

mccain voted with his party about 85% of the time, obama voted with his 97%.

so yeah, in relative terms mccain is a maverick and obama is someone who hasn't really reached across party lines. that doesn't guarantee future voting patterns, but it is an indication.

saden1 · 09-17-2008, 03:36 PM

Maybe if Republicans had any sort of issues worth voting for he would have voted more with Republicans?

View Poll Results: If the election was held today who would you vote for?
McCain	24	44.44%
Obama	30	55.56%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

09-13-2008, 01:22 PM	#96
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 51 Posts: 10,438	Re: If the election was held today i was always convinced the American people are way smarter then anyone in government gives them credit for. but after seeing the McCain camp skirt around the issues, and basically switch their campaign strategy in mid season. they have taken mud slinging to a new level. can anyone on this board show me why the senator is known as a maverick? what exactly has he done to earn this title? and now his partner is also a maverick? __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

09-17-2008, 06:32 AM	#98
NM Redskin The Starter Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,004	Re: If the election was held today Voting with Bush, 90% makes you a maverick? A governor with more earmark requests per person than any other state makes you a maverick? Ummm ok. __________________ Despite my solid 40 time and great intangibles I went undrafted AGAIN!

09-17-2008, 02:36 PM	#104
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Springfield, VA Age: 30 Posts: 15,620	Re: If the election was held today mccain voted with his party about 85% of the time, obama voted with his 97%. so yeah, in relative terms mccain is a maverick and obama is someone who hasn't really reached across party lines. that doesn't guarantee future voting patterns, but it is an indication. __________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

09-17-2008, 03:36 PM	#105
saden1 Eternally Legendary Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 33 Posts: 9,734	Re: If the election was held today Maybe if Republicans had any sort of issues worth voting for he would have voted more with Republicans? __________________ RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

If the election was held today

Parking Lot