Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Feb 16, 2009
Humor on Stimulus Package, Bipartasan, Obama: The Anti-Bush
LESS HUMOROUS - WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO DO:
If you want to comment on ARRA, Write the Whitehouse Here.
Feb 15, 2009
Conflicts Between Economy and Energy
Can Obama balance the budget between Economics and Energy? Will Obama make compromises between foreign policy and commitments to renewable resources?
When the oil prices were high, it made production more feasible in the US in places where drilling costs more. Since the cost of oil decreased several US drilling rigs were moved and crews were cut back.
This decrease in price also caused an economic pinch in the Middle East nations around the Persian Gulf. If the market is unbalanced, yes we will take measures to balance the market,OPEC’s Abdullah al-Badri said. “We will do anything we can to balance the market. After February 15-16 when we will have all the information, we will decide,” he said.
While there has been some talk of President Obama loosening restrictions on the filing of environmental impact statements in order to speed up the use of the $819 billion bailout money, there is no loosening in issuing permits for coal fired plants. Coal fired energy plants do keep down US use of petroleum, which President Obama vowed to decrease.
He claimed in a Lansing, Michigan campaign speech he would eliminate dependence on oil in the Middle East in ten years. In addition, he said he would create five million new jobs by that trategically investing of $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Any increase in economic activity is going to require more energy.
If the US will spend less on oil or try to limit US dependence by taxing foreign oil, OPEC is going to increase the cost of oil until they get back to their original revenues for oil. Any savings with alternative energy will still be passed onto OPEC. OPEC's position is they are more than willing to charge the US more and send less oil.
Can Obama balance the budget between Economics and Energy? Will Obama make compromises between foreign policy and commitments to renewable resources?
When the oil prices were high, it made production more feasible in the US in places where drilling costs more. Since the cost of oil decreased several US drilling rigs were moved and crews were cut back.
This decrease in price also caused an economic pinch in the Middle East nations around the Persian Gulf. If the market is unbalanced, yes we will take measures to balance the market,OPEC’s Abdullah al-Badri said. “We will do anything we can to balance the market. After February 15-16 when we will have all the information, we will decide,” he said.
While there has been some talk of President Obama loosening restrictions on the filing of environmental impact statements in order to speed up the use of the $819 billion bailout money, there is no loosening in issuing permits for coal fired plants. Coal fired energy plants do keep down US use of petroleum, which President Obama vowed to decrease.
He claimed in a Lansing, Michigan campaign speech he would eliminate dependence on oil in the Middle East in ten years. In addition, he said he would create five million new jobs by that trategically investing of $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Any increase in economic activity is going to require more energy.
If the US will spend less on oil or try to limit US dependence by taxing foreign oil, OPEC is going to increase the cost of oil until they get back to their original revenues for oil. Any savings with alternative energy will still be passed onto OPEC. OPEC's position is they are more than willing to charge the US more and send less oil.
Feb 11, 2009
The Blame Game: GOP Is Guilty
It does not matter how the Stimulus Plan turns out for some because if it fails or aggravates the economy they already claim, "If the stimulus plan doesn't work, it won't be because it wasn't bipartisan -- it will be because it's not big and bold enough."
Experience has shown the public does not work that way. Those with a vested interest in their party act as if by mere election and the passing of bills that change has been made. If change is not seen immediately, the public starts digging in and disapproves of all the usual suspects, starting with the President and Congress.
This is one of the problems with a two party system. A progressive government has referendums for a vote. Without that input the public is alienated by not being included. Public confidence needs to be high to recover. People have more confidence if they have already invested their vote on an issue personally.
The housing market did not crash in 2008. It crashed in the third quarter of 2007. The stock market did not crash in 2007. It took its first tailspin the day President Bush made reference to the housing market and started talking about a recession. The public is always at the ready to believe bad news.
Following that was a downturn in consumer goods. Following that was a downturn in employment. This is a spiral caused by a crisis of confidence most of all.
Normally, when a market makes a downturn on its own, normally precious metals like gold and commodities like oil take a giant hike. This is more like the Depression where commodities took a dive.
Experience has shown the public does not work that way. Those with a vested interest in their party act as if by mere election and the passing of bills that change has been made. If change is not seen immediately, the public starts digging in and disapproves of all the usual suspects, starting with the President and Congress.
This is one of the problems with a two party system. A progressive government has referendums for a vote. Without that input the public is alienated by not being included. Public confidence needs to be high to recover. People have more confidence if they have already invested their vote on an issue personally.
The housing market did not crash in 2008. It crashed in the third quarter of 2007. The stock market did not crash in 2007. It took its first tailspin the day President Bush made reference to the housing market and started talking about a recession. The public is always at the ready to believe bad news.
Following that was a downturn in consumer goods. Following that was a downturn in employment. This is a spiral caused by a crisis of confidence most of all.
Normally, when a market makes a downturn on its own, normally precious metals like gold and commodities like oil take a giant hike. This is more like the Depression where commodities took a dive.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)