Who will take on Obama in 2012?

Tools    





Keep on Rockin in the Free World
I think he'll win, but I think it's an awfully long way from a sure thing. The parallels with 2004 are very superficial. Bush still had very strong support among conservatives

Neo-Conservatives you mean.

Conservatives from my understanding are big on fiscal responsibility, small government and the Constitution.

Bush was 0-3.
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



I'm not old, you're just 12.
I suppose I have my fingers crossed for Palin even though she's unlikely because I want that kind of endless entertainment in my life.
yeah, that would be endlessly amusing, I'm seeing the Tina Fey skits in my mind right now.

...but then there's the horrible idea: What if she wins? I mean nobody thought Bush would win, and then he did, so who's to say some weird slight of hand wouldn't put that unqualified loon Palin in office...That idea scares me to death.

Just a thought, but if they wanna win? I would say Mitt Romney would be the best bet. Hell, he's kinda new, but Scott Brown. He's incredibly popular here in Massachusetts, and make no mistake we are a very liberal state. Y'all need a republican JFK. Someone who's conservative but really charismatic and not dangerously far right. Then yeah, Obama would be toast.
__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/



I suppose I have my fingers crossed for Palin even though she's unlikely because I want that kind of endless entertainment in my life.


The Daily Show writers would be in heaven.
__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?



Keep on Rockin in the Free World


The Daily Show writers would be in heaven.
especially if they selected say...Michelle Bachman has her running mate.

The carnage would be Charlie Sheen level funny.



Neo-Conservatives you mean.

Conservatives from my understanding are big on fiscal responsibility, small government and the Constitution.

Bush was 0-3.
Nope; his support was strong among conservatives, too, because most of them decided the foreign policy issues trumped whatever objections they had elsewhere, and the fiscal responsibility/small government stuff was much less of an issue in his first term; the bulk of complaints from conservatives came in the second. This is also while he appealed to independents: many decided the issues of security and terrorism trumped other disagreements. Ideology is not a checklist where every item on it has the same importance as every other for each person.

And while I'm sure you regard him as using the Constitution as a bib while eating spare ribs or something, it's safe to say a lot of conservatives probably didn't have the same impression. So I'd say he's more like 1.5 out of 3, with the addendum that conservatives don't just care about 3 things, and a lot of the other things that got him reelected have been left off of this imaginary test for some reason.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Nope; his support was strong among conservatives, too, because most of them decided the foreign policy issues trumped whatever objections they had elsewhere, and the fiscal responsibility/small government stuff was much less of an issue in his first term; the bulk of complaints from conservatives came in the second.
They didn't say anything about fiscal responsibility and less governmnt until the Democrats took back the Senate. If a Democrat had been in power when 911 happened they woulld have still been yelling small government, fiscal responsibility. Republicans don't really want smaller government. They love laws that trample on civil liberties. It is social progrms they have a problem with. They were spending a ton of money on stuff that had nothing to do with national security like the bridge to nowhere.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



They didn't say anything about fiscal responsibility and less governmnt until the Democrats took back the Senate.
The reason you didn't hear as much about these things is because Bush's major transgressions in terms of fiscal irresponsibility came late in his term. And the largest exception -- the prescription drug benefit -- did annoy prominent conservatives. Just off the top of my head, I recall Sean Hannity being very critical of Bush for it, and I personally know other conservatives who were, too.

If a Democrat had been in power when 911 happened they woulld have still been yelling small government, fiscal responsibility. Republicans don't really want smaller government. They love laws that trample on civil liberties. It is social progrms they have a problem with. They were spending a ton of money on stuff that had nothing to do with national security like the bridge to nowhere.
"They" were not spending money on that -- some of them were. Ones with a vested interest in it, like Ted Stevens. I won't try to pretend that Republicans are not susceptible to the same interest in securing funds for their own states and districts that every politician has. They absolutely are, for the most part, but that doesn't mean one must account for all, or that political backscratching undermines the entire conservative ideology. If that's your logic, you'd have to say the same thing about Democrats who insist we must never venture into people's bedrooms unless it's to grab their wallet.

Also, the old line about how Republicans don't really want smaller government is tired and flat-out wrong. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "smaller government" is a shorthand description of a general philosophy, not a literal, exhaustive political platform (it's two words; how could it be?). Believing in smaller government in general does not require that all conservatives be rabid libertarians. The term is only a contradiction if you take it literally, and there's no reason to take it literally except to pretend there's a contradiction.

This should really go in some other thread at some point, by the way.



A system of cells interlinked
To bad a third party is Really in control...The Finance Party. They have both democrat and republican members, some of them holding positions on Obama's staff right now. They put on a convincing puppet show.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
To bad a third party is Really in control...The Finance Party. They have both democrat and republican members, some of them holding positions on Obama's staff right now. They put on a convincing puppet show.

well more to the point, i'd say Wall Street is the President while Oil and Gas is his right hand man.



As ruf says, he has lots of baggage. But I think that sort of thing is terribly overestimated. Guiliani has some personal scandal in his past and that never even came up during the primary. Fred Thompson's got himself a trophy wife. John McCain is divorced, though his ex-wife has nice things to say about him to this day (even though some rumors don't). Hell, Joe Biden's own Presidential ambitions were derailed once upon a time before because he was caught plagiarizing a British politician
You're right; maybe that's over estimated. On the other hand, none of the guys you mentioned have become president.

I don't think past discretions necessarily have to come up in a campaign or that people have to remember all of the details. They still may say, "Wasn't he involved in something crooked some years ago? Don't think I'll vote for him." Folks always remembered Teddy Kennedy driving off into the water.

I think it's very hard to overestimate a candidate who can command a stage or a debate with their grasp of the issues and their complexities.
If knowledge and ability really counted in a presidential race Adalai Stevenson would have been president.



Gingrich's problem is he is a polarizing presence, definitely not a uniter.
That's actually the kind of baggage I was talking about. The guy has made enemies and I doubt if he's capable of forging bridges to work with the Democrats. Plus he's been out of office too long--that will count against him.



Republicans don't really want smaller government. They love laws that trample on civil liberties.
Well, so long as you're keeping an open mind and not demonizing anyone.



well more to the point, i'd say Wall Street is the President while Oil and Gas is his right hand man.
Oh, of course. That's why the oil industry has been locked out of the Gulf of Mexico for a year and off the other coasts for decades and paying a bigger percentage of taxes on their earnings than any other US industry. They're so much in control they even got stuck with that windfall profit tax.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Well, so long as you're keeping an open mind and not demonizing anyone.
The records of the George W. Bush and Richard Nixon administrations speak for themselves.



Let's face it. these days the most important qualifications to be President are

1) Photogenic

2 Good speaker (not necessarily good debater)

3) Some government experience, preferably as a Senator or Governor



Oh, of course. That's why the oil industry has been locked out of the Gulf of Mexico for a year and off the other coasts for decades and paying a bigger percentage of taxes on their earnings than any other US industry. They're so much in control they even got stuck with that windfall profit tax.
My first goal is to make sure everyone reads this.

My second goal is to make sure everyone reads this again.

For all the talk of this industry or that industry controlling things, you've got to ask yourself why their alleged control of our political process hasn't actually gotten them the things they so obviously want so very badly.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
Oh, of course. That's why the oil industry has been locked out of the Gulf of Mexico for a year and off the other coasts for decades and paying a bigger percentage of taxes on their earnings than any other US industry. They're so much in control they even got stuck with that windfall profit tax.
link to source.

Here's what i found :

The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).

Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.

PROGRAM SUBSIDIES

Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).

PROTECTION SUBSIDIES

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
They still aren't drilling off shore where they want to and they would like a lot more deregulation and tax breaks then they are getting. There is no doubt their money buys them a lot of access and influence. But if they were completely running the show, if both Parties were beholden to them, why is it Democrats give them a harder time than Republicans? And Republicans are for deregulation in general no matter what industry it is.



Not that I think it will matter a flip to you, Dexter, but those tax deductions also have benefits for the nation, not just the industry. Let me point out a few:

Percentage Depletion – This tax break applies only to the small independent US oil companies—the mom & pop firms that do most of the exploration drilling in the mature US—not "Big Oil" like Exxon, Chevron, or BP. The upfront cost for exploring and developing oil and gas is extremely high, more so than any other industry I can think of (we're talking millions of dollars per well, billions when you go offshore in deepwater, and something like 10 years or more from the time they do the initial seismic exploration until the first barrel of oil or Mcf of gas is produced and sold). The depletion allowance helps small oil companies reduce these upfront costs, so they can drill more wells and develop more fields as the underlying mineral is produced. Switching to cost depletion will increase costs for small producers through a more complicated tax system and put more of them out of business.

Tax credits for enhanced oil recovery and for marginal wells. Most of the onland oil wells in the lower 48 states are what they call marginal wells whose production life is nearing an end so that they produce only 10 b/d or less—mostly less. Cumulatively, however, that’s still a hell of a lot of oil being squeezed out of those old wells. Enhanced oil recovery is where one uses chemicals or steam or water downhole to enhance production from a well that is either marginal from long production or that has low porosity in the rock, making it harder to produce the oil. These tax credits were established to ensure continued production when oil prices drop to low levels as in 1986 when Saudi Arabia jacked up its production and dropped the price of oil to $10/bbl. But there is also a mechanism build into these tax reductions that eliminates the credit when oil prices are above a certain level (well below what the price of oil is today, believe me). Eliminating these credits would entirely disregard the cyclical nature of oil prices and penalize marginal or tertiary production when prices are depressed and these marginal wells lose value. In times of low prices, these marginal wells will be the first to be shut in because the value of their production would drop below the cost of producing them. That means US wells being shut in, not reducing imports from the Middle East where production costs are much lower anyway. Once shut in, a marginal well rarely can be brought back into production because the cost of going in and reworking a well to get say 5 b/d of oil is prohibitive. Shut these wells in and they’re gone forever.

Tax credits for expensing of tertiary injectants. As I said earlier, the US is a mature oil producing region but still contains many viable fields whose lives are extended through the use of tertiary injectants, using chemicals downhole to increase oil production in aging wells. This deduction supports using carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects, one of the primary methods by which carbon dioxide is currently stored to prevent its release into the atmosphere, so it has environmental benefits, too. This technology and the tax deduction that helps support it keep many fields active and many production companies in business. Changing how these costs are recovered could force producers to shut in older fields and significantly impact local economies.

Geological and geophysical amortization – Before drilling a well, geologists and geophysicists study the area for clues as to whether there might be any oil or gas below and, if so, the optimum place to drill for it. This is time-consuming and very expensive. The amortization helps recover those upfront costs for tax purposes and is important to continued exploration that in time will lead to more domestic oil and gas, so that we import less from overseas.

International Reform/Dual Capacity - Proposals to restrict the use of deductions and foreign tax credits on foreign earnings ignore the multinational nature of the US economy and particularly the oil industry. Such restrictions would penalize industries like oil and gas that must seek foreign markets to grow. Efforts to subject the oil and natural gas industry to double taxation of its foreign earnings—once in the host country and again in the US—will hinder expansion of US oil companies in the world marketplace. Contrary to statements made by the administration, these proposals will not create US jobs and could even result in US job losses. (It takes several US workers to support an overseas project.)

Another proposal is to repeal the last-in-first-out accounting method, which far from being a tax loophole is merely a way to determine income for companies that anticipate inflation or rising prices over the course of their operations. The system has been in use for over 70 years. Repealing LIFO has no real basis in tax policy and would require companies to redirect cash or sell assets in order to cover the tax payment – potentially destroying some businesses.

Sec. 199 for oil and natural gas companies – A tax deduction established to help US manufacturers maintain and create well-paying US jobs. The oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs. A full repeal of this deduction for just the oil and gas industry places a number of those jobs at risk and undermines efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Expensing of intangible drilling costs – US producers have had the option to expense IDC since the inception of the tax code. It is designed to help companies continue exploring for and producing oil and gas by reducing drilling and development costs. Repealing this deduction will trigger a jump in those costs, resulting in less drilling, less development, fewer US jobs, greater dependence on foreign oil, and in time less revenue to the US government for oil and gas not found and brought to market. These deductions have played a crucial role in advances in technology and spurring transformations in the US economy and America’s energy sector. Similar to the research and development costs for other industries, the intangible drilling and development cost deductions for oil and gas companies have identical policy goals: to promote innovation, foster development of new products and resources, and promote economic growth.

Let me also point out that back before Obama shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, royalties and fees paid on offshore wells throught the old Minerals Management Service was the second greatest source of federal revenue after the income tax.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
rufnek:
"Obama shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico"



If oil is Obama's right hand man as DR says, he must be left handed.

I'm going to gloat some more that Glen Beck lost his TV gig.

Apparently, Beck has become a conspiracy nut, which is more kinds of nut than he was. Limbaugh should have told him to stay away from the chalkboard.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/trump-h...nship/1580154/

After reading this I have cocncluded Trump is dumber than Sarah Palin.