• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Gives Billions for Offshore Drilling But Not Here

Well, as harsh as it is, it is the answer. If the job isn't there, then find a new job. People who have spent years and years developing actual careers do it all the time. And 18 year olds should be flipping burgers and handing me Whoppers anyway.

Or hell....enlist.

Oh, yeah, no jobs is a good thing. That's going to bring the economy back, rolling like a juggernaut.

What about that 25 y/o that just ETS'ed? Think he might deserve a good paying job?

How can you create a job market where every 18 y/o, upon graduation day, has nothing more to look forward to than a minimum wage, part time job doing sh*t work?

I sounded like such a Libbos with that last comment.:(
 
I didn't say no jobs. I said take a job that is there.

The point I'm making, is that there are more workers than jobs. A young man that has enough gumption to trip pipe certainly has what it takes to flip burgers, but there are fewer burger flipping jobs than there are workers available to fill them. How does it work when a 26 y/o driller, with all his experience, goes to McDoogles, or Burger Doodle and can't get hired, because he's over qualified? What about that 25 y/o Marine who is seperated from the service, after spending his entire time as an infantryman, tanker, or gun bunny? He has to get out and flip burgers, because there's nothing to blow up? That's what happened to me, after 12 years as an infantryman. I went to drive trucks for a living. I migrated my way to a driving job that makes some damn good money, but now you tell me that I shouldn't be able to make that money.

It just ain't like that in the real world, man.
 
What some libbies here lie about is the amount of oil existing off our coast borders. Larger fields are being discovered constanlty. Chevron, Anadarko, Murphy, Shell, Exxon, BP, Kerr McGee, to name a few are all working the Gulf coast. So contrary to what called liberal psychic on this thread babbles about offshore drilling techology is concentrated on drilling "depths" as we are discovering new methods to seek out oil at greaters depths than previously thought possible.
The illegal immigrant president is pushing to take back as many oil leases as possible from American companies in the Gulf Coast so under the laws governing this our oil companies are outfoxing the traitor by punching holes in as many sections as possible so they can legally refuse him the abilty to shut down their work for lack of activity. Once oil companies do that O-bla-bla can't touch them.
 
This action stands alone as irrefutable proof that BO's intent is not to bolster the American economy .. but to drive a stake in it!

yeah...by having the export bank loan money to a country that will buy US goods and Services increasing demand for US labor adding money to US corporate coffers and then having that country pay back the export bank with interest.....

Huh, by increasing exports and demand for US goods, BO is out to kill America's economy.

What world do you live in again?
 
yeah...by having the export bank loan money to a country that will buy US goods and Services increasing demand for US labor adding money to US corporate coffers and then having that country pay back the export bank with interest.....

Huh, by increasing exports and demand for US goods, BO is out to kill America's economy.

What world do you live in again?

How much more demand would that 2 billion dollar infusion have created here? If unemployment was 4%, I would say loaning that money to Brazil is a great idea, but...it ain't at 4%.

Just today, PBO said things are going to keep going down hill. The GDP is going to fall more, before it gets better.

Sounds to me like someone has his priorities all ****ed up.
 
Last edited:
How much more demand would that 2 billion dollar infusion have created here?

Technically less. First of all, the money is a loan. That means once the initial outflow goes and demand is created in the us, the foreign company has to pay back the loan amount with interest, thereby increasing available resources to the export bank to then again make another loan to increase US demand. Barring a bankruptcy, we could really just keep using the same cash over and over again to stimulate demand while pocking the interest while increasing exports. When you give it out in the US, that company has to pay it back and thus decreases the amount of money they can otherwise put into their operations as opposed to just a straight equipment/service contract. It makes relatively little sense to saddle your firms with debt when you don't have to. Debt servicing aside from a tax break is largely a money pit, I'd prefer that money to be used to expand US business rather than pay off the export/import bank. When it's foreign, that ain't our problem. In some ways, the Export/Import bank is really just Economic Imperialism. I think that's funny.

If unemployment was 4%, I would say loaning that money to Brazil is a great idea, but...it ain't at 4%.

The problem with that thinking is you are only looking at what's right in your face. Look at it over the long term. Particularly what we can do with that money once it gets repaid with interest.

Just today, PBO said things are going to keep going down hill. The GDP is going to fall more, before it gets better.

And increasing exports will at least reduce that GDP fall.

Sounds to me like someone has his priorities all ****ed up.

So do you think Bush, Clinton, Bush HW, Reagan and so on and so forth had their priorities screwed up when this happened under them? What the export-import bank is doing is essentially what it has been doing for years.
 
Technically less. First of all, the money is a loan. That means once the initial outflow goes and demand is created in the us, the foreign company has to pay back the loan amount with interest, thereby increasing available resources to the export bank to then again make another loan to increase US demand. Barring a bankruptcy, we could really just keep using the same cash over and over again to stimulate demand while pocking the interest while increasing exports. When you give it out in the US, that company has to pay it back and thus decreases the amount of money they can otherwise put into their operations as opposed to just a straight equipment/service contract. It makes relatively little sense to saddle your firms with debt when you don't have to. Debt servicing aside from a tax break is largely a money pit, I'd prefer that money to be used to expand US business rather than pay off the export/import bank. When it's foreign, that ain't our problem. In some ways, the Export/Import bank is really just Economic Imperialism. I think that's funny.

Loaning a domestic company money going to have a lesser affect on the American job market?



The problem with that thinking is you are only looking at what's right in your face. Look at it over the long term. Particularly what we can do with that money once it gets repaid with interest.

WE aren't going to do anything with the money...:rofl



And increasing exports will at least reduce that GDP fall.

Reducing the fall is a failed tactic. The stealfromus package proved that.



So do you think Bush, Clinton, Bush HW, Reagan and so on and so forth had their priorities screwed up when this happened under them? What the export-import bank is doing is essentially what it has been doing for years.


As I pointed out earlier, if domestic unemployment were at 4%, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, with unemployment bumping 10%, propping up jobs outside the United States shows a lack of prioritization.
 
Loaning a domestic company money going to have a lesser affect on the American job market?

Did you even read what I wrote?

For once in your career here, TRY.

WE aren't going to do anything with the money...:rofl

But in the context of this discussion, please try for a change. Unless you want me to add this to the list of why we hold you in contempt.

Reducing the fall is a failed tactic. The stealfromus package proved that.

Actually the stimulus doesn't support exports for the most part and it has failed because it did not hold to the most important aspect: timeliness. If the $787 billion had gone out within 3 months and was actually spent in 3 months, we'd be singing another tune entirely, one likely of raising interest rates to somewhere I'd guess in the vicinity of 8% to curtail inflation.

Try learn something about the subjects you talk about for a change.

As I pointed out earlier, if domestic unemployment were at 4%, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, with unemployment bumping 10%, propping up jobs outside the United States shows a lack of prioritization.

That is because you failed to understand what the deal actually does.
Rather than actually look at what the deal does, you are going off on "I hate Obama" and thus you don't even bother to look at what will actually occur or how it will impact American businesses. Your utter failure to even read the long paragraph in which I detail just why service contracts are better than loans especially when the money is revolving and out of the export bank is concrete evidence of it.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to remove your blinders. What the loan is, is nothing more than corporate welfare. You have consistently failed to understand that.

I'd love to see your argument for how increasing markets for US exports is bad for American businesses. But I doubt you'll even read this.
 
Did you even read what I wrote?

For once in your career here, TRY.



But in the context of this discussion, please try for a change. Unless you want me to add this to the list of why we hold you in contempt.



Actually the stimulus doesn't support exports for the most part and it has failed because it did not hold to the most important aspect: timeliness. If the $787 billion had gone out within 3 months and was actually spent in 3 months, we'd be singing another tune entirely, one likely of raising interest rates to somewhere I'd guess in the vicinity of 8% to curtail inflation.

Try learn something about the subjects you talk about for a change.



That is because you failed to understand what the deal actually does.
Rather than actually look at what the deal does, you are going off on "I hate Obama" and thus you don't even bother to look at what will actually occur or how it will impact American businesses. Your utter failure to even read the long paragraph in which I detail just why service contracts are better than loans especially when the money is revolving and out of the export bank is concrete evidence of it.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to remove your blinders. What the loan is, is nothing more than corporate welfare. You have consistently failed to understand that.

I'd love to see your argument for how increasing markets for US exports is bad for American businesses. But I doubt you'll even read this.

You are incapable of having an honest debate, without going off some temper-tantrum and pewing personal attacks. Obviously, you just like to get your way and get pissy when you don't. I'm surprised that anyone takes you seriously, but I gess that explains why your more brilliant posts are in the basement.
 
Last edited:
yeah...by having the export bank loan money to a country that will buy US goods and Services increasing demand for US labor adding money to US corporate coffers and then having that country pay back the export bank with interest.....

Huh, by increasing exports and demand for US goods, BO is out to kill America's economy.

What world do you live in again?
Are those loans getting paid back?
 
You are incapable of having an honest debate, without going off some temper-tantrum and pewing personal attacks. Obviously, you just like to get your way and get pissy when you don't. I'm surprised that anyone takes you seriously, but I gess that explains why your more brilliant posts are in the basement.

Seriously? You don't even attempt to read what I wrote and then you accuse me of all kind of random stuff? And I can't debate honesty? The answer to your question was in the post you quoted! Thus, suggesting to me you don't even attempt to read what people reply to you. Without any effort on your part, you cannot even hope to even participate in a discussion much less debate honesty.

If my posts are so wrong why are you so incapable of refuting them?

You may way to review the rules before posting. You just violated one of them.
 
Seriously? You don't even attempt to read what I wrote and then you accuse me of all kind of random stuff? And I can't debate honesty? The answer to your question was in the post you quoted! Thus, suggesting to me you don't even attempt to read what people reply to you. Without any effort on your part, you cannot even hope to even participate in a discussion much less debate honesty.

If my posts are so wrong why are you so incapable of refuting them?

You may way to review the rules before posting. You just violated one of them.

I do read what you write and it's not even credible enough to qualify as an opinion. You say I take the, "hate Obama", position, well you take the Obama sychophantism position. You can't back up anything you've posted, so there's not much to refute.
 
I do read what you write and it's not even credible enough to qualify as an opinion. You say I take the, "hate Obama", position, well you take the Obama sychophantism position. You can't back up anything you've posted, so there's not much to refute.

Explain what I wrote then, if you can. Which I extremely doubt.

Let's see if you actually do read what I wrote. Given your history here, it's pretty obvious you don't read what people write and you just respond to whatever you want.

I do like how you think that in a situation where you could have American firms increase exports without debt is WORSE than a situation that increases their debt is not credible. Hysterical. More debt eh? Tell that to BoA and Citi.

And I'm a Obama sychophant? Do you realize i didn't vote for him and yesterday I said he should be impeached if next year's deficit is as high as this years?
 
Explain what I wrote then, if you can. Which I extremely doubt.

Let's see if you actually do read what I wrote. Given your history here, it's pretty obvious you don't read what people write and you just respond to whatever you want.

I do like how you think that in a situation where you could have American firms increase exports without debt is WORSE than a situation that increases their debt is not credible. Hysterical. More debt eh? Tell that to BoA and Citi.

And I'm a Obama sychophant? Do you realize i didn't vote for him and yesterday I said he should be impeached if next year's deficit is as high as this years?

I'm not explaining your point for you. It's your job to make it make sense.
 
I'm not explaining your point for you. It's your job to make it make sense.

Translation: I didn't read what you wrote, I didn't bother and I'm not going to own up to the fact I didn't read what you wrote.

It is funny how you argued for a position of debt over debt free. Tell me, since you think my opinion for debt free is not credible, why should we saddle American firms with debt when the opportunity to increase demand for their products can be done without saddling them with debt?

Or you could just admit you didn't even read what I wrote.
 
Translation: I didn't read what you wrote, I didn't bother and I'm not going to own up to the fact I didn't read what you wrote.

It is funny how you argued for a position of debt over debt free. Tell me, since you think my opinion for debt free is not credible, why should we saddle American firms with debt when the opportunity to increase demand for their products can be done without saddling them with debt?

Or you could just admit you didn't even read what I wrote.

Maybe you could just own up to your posts not making a bit of sense, instead of accusing your opponent of not reading them?
 
Maybe you could just own up to your posts not making a bit of sense, instead of accusing your opponent of not reading them?

Tell me how my post doesn't make sense. Back up your claims. Show where it does not.

I know for a fact you didn't read it. The question now is if you have the maturity to admit that.
 
Tell me how my post doesn't make sense. Back up your claims. Show where it does not.

I know for a fact you didn't read it. The question now is if you have the maturity to admit that.

Ok, here it is...
 
I know for a fact now you read it. You just don't have the maturity to admit you are wrong.

Simple case in point. Increasing demand where demand did not exist creates jobs. Your argument is that it does not since you reject my argument.

IF you explained what I'd written you'd lose huge amounts of face, more then you already have, thus you pretend my argument is crap yet you fully know I am right.

And your predicted response will be insults with another attempt to weasel out of pointing out where I am wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom