Obama and the Tax and Spend Liberal’s Solution to Oil: Spend and Tax and Defeat Capitalism

While we can dismiss the errant blathers of Paul Krugman[1] and his familiar Thomas Friedman[2] of the Walter Duranty Papers[3]--as mere crude anti-economic sorcery we still have to contend with the energy crisis and how we [1] get free of the Islamo-Fascisti and their parasitic stooges like Hugo Chavez and [2] increase the supply of oil that will eventually, against the dire wishes of the far left and their signals lower the cost of gasoline. Friedman has recently taken a little boat ride with some drooling socialist to sob about melting ice at Greenland’s Kangia Glacier, a land that was once green that suddenly froze over and sent the Vikings scurrying back to warmer climes and that may soon be returned to its original state where the inhabitants can again grow stuff instead of bawl about the US, gurgle and purr about socialism and eat fish. What covered this place in ice 1000 years ago? CO2 from Buicks and coal plants? Not those, probably sun activity.

Hs emotional comment is “And now our leaders are telling them the way out is “offshore drilling” for more climate-changing fossil fuels.”[4]

There is no connection between climate and energy usage. Fact. [5]

Of course, the history of Greenland and elsewhere shows that greenhouse gases did NOT cause these ice formations and their melts, but facts only irritate a good freak show where taxes are the topic of the day. The left can survive only on the tax and spend mechanism. As such, we expect any scare tactic or incoherent computer model to predict doom so we must Save the Planet and impress the anti-drilling mantra N.O.P.E on all [not on planet Earth]. We all know Global Warming ah….Climate Change is a farce and a mere tax-whoring project of Jovian proportions.[6]

So, what do they suggest? Oh! Pump up your tires! That will save 2%! How wonderful.

The problem here is about the economic laws of supply and demand, two items that our krugmaniacal non-economist from Princeton cannot coherently discuss and the need to increase the supply in the future because of growth, another economic vector that our politico at the Times cannot handle. The left is essentially anti-growth as growth allows the good citizens to grow out of socialism and big government. Growth is their political holocaust and they fight it with all the foam and froth they can muster.  They can only depress our economy with bans and high taxes. They cannot allow cheap energy because that keeps us ahead of third world and their chronic problems.

But, the angry voters, now numbering somewhere around 70%, are aware that 4$ gas is costing them a bunch so the libs have to mollify the anger with something: money from spending and taxation and debt.

Spend and Tax! Or is it Tax and Spend? The order might be important.

The new boy-on-dah-block with an oil message is Evan Bayh who has an impressive taxation voting record that favors taxation and spending while suppressing oil exploration and production:[7]

Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.

‘Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning.

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR.

Senator Bayh was on Fox News this morning and wants to give out some money to the voters and also use up some of our oil reserves. He is mentioned as a possible VP for O’Bozo.  He wants to give the lower classes tax money or tax credits but that will not increase the supply or lower costs. The price of oil is dropping because of supply and demand—not some magical governmental action. 

The Chief Tax Whore B. Hussein O’Bozo has  offered this plan, celebrated by the Huffington Post:[8] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said.

The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills.”

So, we need to reduce costs and increase supply and O’Bozo wants to add 0.2 x 120  in tax to Exxon’s oil costs? That will lower the cost of gas??That is another 24$ per barrel at the current cost. At $150 per barrel, the kind of number Hugo Chnavez[9] likes it would rise to .2 x 150 or $30 per barrel raising the cost to $180 per barrel!

At $180 per barrel the gas would rise to about $5 pergallon and that would give them 200 gallons of gas or 4 gallons per week to drive around on.

Notice the mindless tax and spend at all costs mentality here? Hillary wanted to put on a 50 bln dollar punitive tax on oil companies. Tapping into our reserves would, at the current numbers, add less than 4 days oil supply and that is a mere 1% of the yearly outlay. Gee, nice economics guys.

Tax tax tax and hike oil prices! Anybody miss this trend?

BaloneyBayh states from his website:

“Senator Bayh advocates a redirection in oil consumption and greater investment in innovations and technologies, such as hybrid vehicles and homegrown ethanol, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”[10]

Didn’t the NYT recently  poo pooh this notion as it raise the cost of food and is inefficient? Is Indiana a corn state and is he pandering to his constituents? Duh? Did he get a corn bribe?

In a New York Times article entitled Grains Gone Wild[11], the Times’ noisiest non-economist waxes economic for our amusement.[12]

“Over the past few years the prices of wheat, corn, rice and other basic foodstuffs have doubled or tripled, with much of the increase taking place just in the last few months. High food prices dismay even relatively well-off Americans — but they’re truly devastating in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a family’s spending.” — Paul Krugman New York Times. [Note: All quotes here have my emphasis and refer to the article Grains Gone Wild unless otherwise indicated.]

Notice the incoherency here. Ethanol is a pipedream as we don’t have enough land to grow that much corn anyway, an easy calculation to make and one that makes authors of such nonsense look like drooling idiots, the usual leftist visualization. We have most of the world’s energy reserves counting coal and the leftists see this prospect as hopeless for their socialist, racist, anti-white and Marxist causes.

The facts are quite stark and nasty:

The Tax and Spend Democrats will do or say anything to prevent growth.

Here is an article about Kenneth Rogoff( a former formidable chess opponent of mine at Yale) who is an anti-growth liberal who majored (in the early 70s at least)  in Russian Economics at Yale.

Kenneth Rogoff: We Need a Recession (Well, at Least a Slowdown)

“Even though we agree that recessions are Bad Things, we also think there are things worse than letting recessions occur. For instance, we are now seeing that keeping the party going way too long leads to more brutal adjustments in the end. And there is some evidence that there is no free lunch, that forestalling a recession leads to lower than potential output in the good times.

Rogoff, in a Financial Times comment, contends we need a slowdown for different reasons: he views the efforts at stimulus as a dangerous, misguided way to try to evade the need to restructure the financial system. Even though his forecast of oil falling as low as $75 a barrel may strike some readers as extreme. note that the famous Goldman research that called for a "super spike" of $150 to $200 a barrel this year also called for prices a few years out at $75. He also says, mirable dictu[13], that financial firms need to fail because the industry is unsustainably large.”[14]

 Isn’t that great! If our economy is ‘unsustainably large’ perhaps we need to fail for that reason. That would do two things: [1] reduce our oil dependency and save the Icelanders from seeking air conditioning and [2] give the leftists an opportunity to provide jobs for all of us growing corn for energy. Using this logic maybe China and India and Africa need to ‘fail’ because their populations are is unsustainably large for their food supplies!

This is the kind of mindless fluff that ruins economies.

 So, what do these leftists want?

Should we degrade our society and put us into poverty while China and India take over the use of energy and prosper?

Yes:

From Ed Koch some time back:

“The argument offered by China, India and other developing countries is clear and direct. Said Lu Xuedu, the deputy director general of the Chinese Office of Global Environmental Affairs, "You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions." China's intent is to put the United States and Europe in a difficult economic position where standards of living will be reduced until developing countries rise to the standard of the U.S.At that point the developing countries will be required to reduce their emissions.[15]

Catch-up football?

President Bush has been attacked by Al Gore and his supporters for resisting a treaty [that was the phony Kyoto Treaty  ed] that could inflict economic harm on the American people. Does Al Gore seriously think that we should reduce the U.S. standard of living until developing countries -- formerly called Third World countries until that term was discarded as demeaning-- catch up with us economically? -- catch up with us economically?”Article by Ed Koch December 18, 2007[16]

You bet he does!

Let us take a deep look at these people and ask: what do they want for the US?

The answers are:

[1] They hate American ideals and life and our economy  and want our capitalist system to fail.[17] [18] [19]

[2] They are anti-Christian[20] and want to favor either atheism or Islamo-Fascism.[21]

[3] They are anti-white racists. [22] [23] [24]

[4] They want the US to be a third world dung heap.

High energy prices are the way to bring us down to third world levels. Think about this………

Do not vote for a liberal. They hate us.

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

rycK

Pelosi Lies to the Public and Encourages Her Toadies to Lie to Get Elected.

We know that liberals are liars and worse so the Pelosi Mandate [No Drilling Anywhere] is only firm if there is any risk of any of her toadies losing the election. He thinking here is: Lie about drilling now and we can fix it after the election.

“But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.”[1] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

We know that liberals are liars and sleaze bags that have a rabid hunger for new taxes and a psychotic lust for power so this is not expected.

““The reality is we will have a new president in three months, and what Bush and the Republicans are trying to do amounts to a land grab for the oil companies,” said one senior House Democratic aide involved with party strategy. “I don’t think we have to give in at all pre-election — we have many more options postelection.”

Lie now, grunt and grab later.

That fits the average Democrat.

“Indeed, Congress must vote before Sept. 30 to renew the annual [Offshore Oil Drilling] moratorium; otherwise, it will lapse on its own, giving states the right to decide whether private companies can search for potential drilling sites three miles offshore. ”

““There is no crisis on our side of the aisle,” a top House Democratic leadership aide said. “We have a plan, and we will stick to it.”

Sure, if the economy goes down because of cost-push oil costs you can always blame Bush.

Typical liberalism.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Obama and his Failure to Have a Clear Lead Over McCain.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we must be alert for new visions and slants on the political activities of our times. Problems must be solved by government as we are always instructed. Always replete with noisy praise and grand salutations for some misguided person’s replastered precept of socialism or Marxism  that must be summarily incorporated into our society with great alacrity and song, we must follow the clarion calls, hear the trumpets ring and scrounge for suitable social solutions for problems.  Taxes are the only way. Higher taxes can only heighten our glory as a nation.  Such comments and conclusions are supplied daily by the New York Times. There is always some pressing grave threat to society than can be handily solved with a good stiff tax increase. We are recurrently offered detailed analyses of: how we were steered into this swamp by capitalism, how the tax increase opportunity that will hoist us from the communal latrines, and, how we learn, anew, about the basics and root causes of our societal problems. Liberalism always provides a solution.  Capitalism and private property are always the culprits. Such is the mission and mantra of the Times and, today, our Babbling Brooks[2] examines the bizarre lack of support for Obama in the polls.

We are now treated to a swampy raft of ‘not of’’ clichés that beg that the word tautological be expanded in form and breadth.

“Why isn’t Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?” [3] Where’s the Landslide? By David Brooks [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

Are we to believe that this metaphorical question will not be summarily answered?

Brooks probes the political landscape and cannot seem to place Senator Obama in any precise category. That is strange. Everybody else can.

Here some extracts from his current NYT essay, the details are not important as the mechanism applied here could be used to examine the drying habits of paint, mysterious spots on the rug or the origin of wiggling foreign materials in your soup.

“He was in the law school, but not of it.”

“His childhood was a peripatetic journey through Kansas, Indonesia, Hawaii and beyond. He absorbed things from those diverse places but was not fully of them.”

“He was in TrinityUnitedChurch of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr.”

“And so it goes. He is a liberal, but not fully liberal.”

“When we’re judging candidates (or friends), we don’t just judge the individuals but the milieus that produced them.”

“It is hard to plant Obama.”

“So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.”

We can search the literature for examples of incoherency and sophomoric mumblings but this one from David Brooks today is truly a prize.

Obama is clearly a far-left radical Democrat with a 100% left-liberal voting record.

Look at some of these:

“(AP) London, March 2, 1867: Karl Marx, a rising star among centrist economists, announced today the publication of the first volume of his treatise, 'Das Kapital'.”[4]

 And, from the same link:

Obama fits the liberal profile to a 'T.' Examples:

• Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
• National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
• Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
• NAACP 100% in 2005.
• American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.
• Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003 .
• Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.
• National Organization For Women 100% in 2005.
• NRA, 'F' in 2004.
• Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
• 2005 AFL-CIO 92%.
• Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005[5]

Here are a few more for your entertainment: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Can Brooks refute any of this? His comment above about a person being associated with his “milieus that produced them” flies in the face of logic, history and fact. B. Hussein Obama is the product of the far left and the proof lies in his praise, errant slobberings and song from the entire group of far-lefts clusters listed above.  He is one of their darlings just like Castro, Ortega, Stalin and McGovern.

To essay that Obama is not a far-left liberal, a racist and a racist enabler, a liar and flip-flopper is uncanny even for the sausage-machine brats known as Pinch Pustules [10] that routinely smear their opponents and then redact the ugly parts of recorded history to whitewash one of their icons. They won’t publish McCain’s op-ed. That is how they bias the news and commentary.

The political problem here and being addressed in standard leftist wimpish and shifty form is that the public has now learned that Obama is a Tax Whore. [11]

We already have proof of this.

The duty of the NYT is, of course, to ‘show’ that O’Bozo is a ‘centrist’ or a person who is unique and unbiased and ‘thinks’ for himself. The facts refute this. Obama is a stuffed suit with his pockets stuffed with standard, stale left-liberal crap. There is NOTHNG unique about this artificial construct and all the fluff and foam from the Times and their familiars cannot alter the facts. He is a leftist stooge. He will lie and parry and flip-flop and say anything to get elected and the public has caught on. His polls cannot get him above 49% and that is alarming for the left who think Obama is running against Bush and Cheney. He will probably lose and the season is still young. McCain is gaining on this phony.

Obama is the most far-left politician every to run for office in this country.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com