Greg Pulscher: Steamboat on the economy

Advertisement

— Large offshore platforms, deep shale fracturing, rising corn prices, United Nations CO2 offset program, supposed democratic revolutions, and the list goes on. Each world event is just as important as the other with philosophical turmoil embedded in each situation and decades of propaganda, technology and history behind each one. No individual in their right mind could have a complete understanding of all without becoming a hermit cooped up in their office reading pages of blogs, books and Drudge reports.

What is important to someone in Steamboat Springs is the price of a tank of gas or a pound of meat, landing a job, earning enough for a house and even starting a business. Whether democracy takes hold in Libya, a debt ceiling is raised or some billion-dollar company can or can’t build one offshore platform is insignificant if you can’t afford to drive to work, feed the family or get yourself out of unemployment.

But all of these things taken together are important because they affect prices, your ability to make a living and, ultimately, your freedom.

The common problem behind these large events and, more important to Steamboat, the effect that their resolutions have in terms of the price of goods, services and the unemployment rate, is the philosophy of government involvement, and decades of compromise and passing the problem off to the next year until the problem is no longer controllable or capable of being disguised by taxes, borrowing or spending money not yet in existence. In other words, the problem is Democrats and liberal ideas and Republicans and conservatives not willing to stand for limited government involvement.

Remember hearing Republicans saying they are going to set their beliefs aside for the betterment of the country? These people were elected for their ideas and beliefs, so setting them aside should in fact hurt everyone involved, not benefit them.

It is like a doctor being hired to treat a patient with an illness, but the doctor telling the patient, “In the interest of you and everyone else, I am going to consult with a high school student studying biology and compromise on a treatment.”

Your price of cereal and meat are going up? Well, the problem is a government giving taxpayer money to ethanol subsidies to produce a product that will make sure your car gets less per gallon than regular gas.

Your price to fill your tank going up? The problem is a government taxing not just the gallon of gas, but taxing the oil companies so they pass the tax on to you, and making oil exploration so expensive that new drilling or discoveries are terribly expensive, if not impossible. Furthermore, a large reason for the rioting in the Middle East was caused by rising food prices triggered by the subsidy of ethanol in America — and we have yet to understand just what ill effects these riots will have.

Just with these two problems we can see how intertwined each problem is and see just how an idea such as improving the environment can snowball into a mass frenzy of higher prices, less affordable food, rioting and then come full circle with higher prices at the pump. The original idea of saving the environment was nice, but when interacting with the real word and using a big government philosophy, this large mess ensued.

In a system of more limited government, ethanol would still find a way in our tank if it actually saved energy and was cheaper. However, ethanol neither saves energy nor money.

In a free market, a solar panel entrepreneur who wants to stay in business discovers a revolutionary panel that makes solar cheaper than fossil fuels, and new fuels are developed because of the immense return that can be earned by the inventor. What we have now is maintaining the status quo of worthless technology.

Have a problem with rising prices, inefficient new appliances, unaffordable housing and other problems? Check your premise, and I am sure you will find government is the problem and will never be the answer. As Ronald Reagan observed, “Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”

Greg Pulscher is a Steamboat Springs resident and leader of the Young Conservative Club. For more information, email steamboatycc11@hotmail.com.

Comments

kathy foos 3 years, 1 month ago

County's should take into consideration peak oil topped out in 2007, and begin to consider saving its oil reserves for the future manufacturing ,get off of the gasoline ,ethanol should be expanded.Oil company's make enough money to not need our sympathy anyway.To say Libya's problems are caused by ethanol production in the US?Ha! "the original idea of saving the environment was nice",its still nice .It will happen,it does happen.I'm glad if its too much money for the oil company's to drill,they need to slow down and be safe first.A county needs to consider that oil has been on the way down since 2007 and consider that into issuing permits for drilling along with land ,water and human life protections.Make sure oil producers have enough money on hold to dismantle old production sites so the taxpayers don't end up paying.Save some oil for the plastic that will be needed in the future,that's more vital than running your vehicle on gasoline instead of ethanol.I say the american people don't care if their cars run on gasoline or ethanol ,just so they run on something.Endorsing oil futures is like saying"Please step down my dead end road to nowhere."Save the under ground water from gas fracturing pollution .People need to speak up ,your voice does matter.

0

kathy foos 3 years, 1 month ago

How about moving into a whole new bold direction.........it could mean more money for the oil company's in the end?Oil the new rare earth mineral just like the" moly" mined in Leadville, Silverthorne and China.Out law gasoline, encourage ethanol(creates jobs everywhere in manufacturing.)Electric car industry,magnetic cars,anything but our rare earth oil mineral that must be preserved for future consumption,at any cost.The regular working people are already loosing homes,jobs to foreigners,paying too much for gas food,and oil didn't save us from that.In fact a few years ago the oil industry charged so much money for gas for so long it threw us into the stupid bad economy anyway.We cannot afford to ignore our dirty little problem of oil consumption any longer.We must address this issue now,everyone getting involved.I would love to pay a dollar a gallon,even three dollars a gallon more for ethanol to know I am saving some rare earth oil for my great,great grand kids.Not to mention their drinking water and fresh air.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

Nice piece Greg but the Arab Spring is something other than what the media is purporting it to be, take a look at the players involved and you will see the SEIU, Code Pink, ACORN and Obama Administration along with other Globalists such as George Soros all abetting the Muslim Brotherhood and their aspirations for the long sought after Caliphate they have been desiring. Church's are being destroyed and Christians and those of other faiths are being killed, this has nothing to do with food or freedom, their is no freedom of religion under Islam and a Caliphate. As far as Peak Oil, what a scam! We have a Government that is giving permits to Brazil and China to drill for our oil here in the Gulf of Mexico and using the EPA to keep the USA from it's own reserves in places like Alaska and the Western US. The World is headed for food shortages and that is why China is buying valuable farmland in places like Africa and South America. I have also seen where China is buying huge tracts of land here in the USA in places like Iowa. @sun, why don't you take a look at the UN's Agenda 21 and the ICLEI global initiative, if you want to lose your rights here in NW Colorado then keep believing the lie of things like peak oil, it is all a scam to rest control of our lives. The private sector under a freedom of Capitalism has been the catalyst for invention over the last 2 centuries and "would" be the engine to create innovation away from fossil fuels if it survives the Globalist onslaught.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

Further more, If anyone cares to see what our powerful Government can do to innovation just watch this video about the cure for CANCER!!! Obamacare?

If you don't know about this then you are at risk for the continued propaganda from our Government.

"Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business" http://vimeo.com/24821365

0

Glenn Little II 3 years, 1 month ago

An acre of Hemp produces 10,000 liters of Ethanol while an acre of Corn or Maize only produces up to 2,500 liters of Ethanol.. Hemp can also be used for oil and food products. Here is another nice statistic - 1 Acre hemp produces 4 times the amount of paper 1 acre of trees can produce. Hemp takes 3months to grow while trees take a lifetime !!!

0

sledneck 3 years, 1 month ago

Excellent Greg. Keynesian economic chickens are comming home to roost. Government can't "stimulate" my economy until it first "un-stimulates" someone elses.

But, then again, maybe stimulation was never the goal. Maybe the goal was power through broadening support. After all "A gubbamint who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul". Worse, Paul knows that if he were to take his neighbors property he would go to jail but he can get his "Uncle Scam" to do it for him and it's all nice and legal.

Question is... what's going to happen when we all change our name to Paul? Answer: The gubbamint will have all the power and it won't matter to them WHAT your name is. Its translation will be "slave".

Sun, The pain of your loss is blinding you. Ethanol is a scourge on this nation. It not only takes land out of food production but the corn from which it comes requires massive amounts of water from our aquifers... you know, the water you want to "save for your great, great grandkids".

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

seeuski----"I have also seen where China is buying huge tracts of land here in the USA in places like Iowa." What would you call the individual who sold the land to China? A capitalist? A free-marketer? What they are is short-sighted and greedy. What would you call the actions of Cesepeake oil?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/10/AR2010101004499.html

I would call them traitors. While they may be enriching themselves in the short-term they are selling the US down the river. Some things are not a global conspiracy. Some things just go back to individual greed. Why no outrage from you on these points?

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

What a goofy stance scott selby, thanks for the story though. Have you been sitting on it all along for just for this moment in time? Are you outraged at Obama shutting down our oil production but financing Petrobras? How many times must we butt heads for the sake of it? We are all on this ship that is being "fundamentally changed" together and we will all suffer the consequences of what is coming. Unless you got some sort of Obama "change" waiver.

The coolaid is wearing off for many, how is your supply? Vote accordingly in 2012 or complain somewhere else.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See- I can go and find the link to where I asked you about it months ago, but I won't waste my time. I am not trying to change your mind, I asked what you would call a company that sold out our interests to the Chinese or an individual in Iowa who would sell China their farmland. I thought you might agree with me that they were not doing the US any good by doing so.

PS Oil exploration in the US is 25% higher than it was one year ago. I know facts do not sit well with you....but here they are.

On Friday June 17, 2011, 3:00 pm EDT HOUSTON (AP) -- The number of rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas in the U.S. rose by five this week to 1,860.

Houston-based drilling product provider Baker Hughes Inc. reported Friday that 984 rigs were exploring for oil and 870 for natural gas. Six were listed as miscellaneous. A year ago, the rig count stood at 1,539.

Of the major oil- and gas-producing states, Texas gained five rigs, North Dakota four, West Virginia three, Louisiana two and Wyoming one. New Mexico fell by seven, Pennsylvania was down five, and Colorado and Oklahoma each dropped by one.

Alaska, Arkansas and California were unchanged.

0

sledneck 3 years, 1 month ago

I did not know companies were supposed to have "OUR" interest in mind. Nor do believe they have ever sworn to bear "our" interests. A company exists to make profit for it's shareholders. If it legally sells a legal product and makes a profit doing so what business is it of anothers with whom it made the transaction? If the guy in Iowa waited for Scott (or me for that matter) to buy his farm, his kid might not get to go to college, or get that life-saving bone marrow operation she needs; again what business is it of a third party? Why didn't smoeone like Scott step in and buy the farm before the Chineese got to it?

It is unfortunate that so many people incorrectly expect fidelity from businesses which NEVER swore it and do not exist to offer it while excusing INFIDELITY at every turn from those who placed their hand on a Bible and swear fidelity to the Constitution and to defend it from its foreign AND domestic enemies.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sledneck: You or the landowner or even Chesepeake oil have every right to sell to whomever they want. I understand your libertarian point of view. It is also legal for companies to outsource jobs. That does not make it better for our country or the economy of our country. While it is legal for Chesepeake to act in their own interest and that is what companies are suppose to do, it does not make me feel a lot better about their decision to allow the Chinese government to develop and exploit our natural resources.

I expect fidelity from individuals. That is what corporations are, a collection of individuals I do not believe that it takes an oathe to be bound to the priciples outlined in our constitution.

Whether you accpet it or not, we do live in a society that is interconnected. Most of your or my actions do have either a direct or indirect impact on someone else. The farmer selling his land to China could have the impact of driving food prices in this country higher. Higher food prices could result in less money being spent in other areas of the economy causing a decline in the sale of other retail goods, etc.

While the following words have been interpreted differently by courts within our Nation, it is clear that the Founding Fathers did see the value in a collection of individuals working toward a common goal or ideal. The definition of that common goal is obviously open for debate, as it should be. The underlying fact exists that they saw the United States as a whole, not just as the individuals who comprise the population.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

0

sledneck 3 years, 1 month ago

I disagree that it is "not better to outsource jobs". It is indeed better to give a pencil-making job to a china-man and give a pencil-making American a job making (or designing) I-phones instead. Furthermore, it was not american corporations that, out of the blue, decided to wander abroad. It was the insatiable apetite for more taxes, regulation and manipulation on the part of "uncle scam", and fat, lazy americans demanding $70/hr to build cars and the like, that has driven otherwise patriotic companies to a closer examination of their alternatives. And that examinaton has, no doubt, revealed a wide-open world of opportunity free from endless red tape.

If you expect patriotic fidelity from individuals or companies irregardless of their financial ties, then you, sir, expect what never has been nor ever will be. Unlike those hypocrite snakes in DC who swear allegiance and sow treason, corporations serve their customers and shareholders; and they have, heretofore, proved to hold far more fidelity to their sworn cause while providing consumers with far greater innovations than those inside the cesspool on the Potomac.

The likely result of the chineese company owning a US farm is that "Uncle Scam" will find a way to tax their chineese ass like he taxes mine. I find only comfort in that thought. Another possible result might be a lowering of food costs since, apparently, americans can't produce anything cheaper than a chineese can. Why would a chineese company buy a US farm if they did not intend to produce the food cheaper? If not they would just buy the food from the Iowa farmer without all the headaches, no?

As the founders envisioned it, the States were united. And when the union with which they had freely associated proved un-satisfactory the willingly united States were free to; indeed they were duty-bound to dis-associate with the other States which had united (SMALL LETTER U) for a mutual benefit. The Declaration of Independance is clear on this. ..."that whenever any form of government decomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..."

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sledneck: You indeed have an interesting take on things. I in no way, shape form or fashion agree with you, but your take is interesting. I don't know if the "farm in Iowa" even exists, but I would wager that China may be running out of places to grow food within its' own borders. Your Macheavellian world view would be much more believable if you were not complaining about bile riders infringing on your rights or the proper use of roads in other threads, but your views are interesting. Afterall. the money to build those roads was seized from you (and them) by "Uncle Scam", correct?

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sledneck- One additional thought on the right of landowners to sell to China etc "My "right" to leave my kid in a car or with a pedophile babysitter may exist but it does not mean I should excercise that right, nor should I be surprised when such judgement is questioned." Those were your words concerning bike riders. I was questioning the farmers or Chesepeake's wisdom in exercising their "right" to sell US land and mineral leases to the Chinese government. Are you surprised someone would question their judgement?

0

Rick Akin 3 years, 1 month ago

Good job, Greg. The link between ethanol subsidies and the "Arab Spring" is interesting and logical. Commodity prices are at record highs and the devotion of agricultural resources to ethanol is certainly a part. Economic difficulties are certainly part of the reason for the Middle East uprisings. There is no way to know if this was the tipping point, but there is certainly a connection. Good job linking it up. Like Greg and See, I am not too optimistic that these revolutions will turn out well.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott, do you know the difference between oil exploration and actual oil drilling? Do you know how long the permitting process is for actual drilling? Is it your position in the face of all the evidence that Obama is expanding US oil drilling? Why would China be sucking up farms, oil fields and the like all around the World? Why would Russian President Medvedev tell the World that he hopes for an Obama re-election?

Either your head is in the sand or your sources of information are nothing more than the left wing media mouthpiece for the Obama campaign and their comrades. Do I really want to go through this exercise in futility AGAIN, with another committed ObamaZombie? I could parade a dose of news links to rebut your quackery but it will prove to be fruitless as usual. And seriously, I never saw your post about Chesapeake until the other day and it is telling because the Obama Administration seems to allow foreign nations like China and Brazil to bypass the regs that they impose on the US companies for those same permits. Point being the Brazil oil drilling in our Gulf of Mexico, and please, I will just put the link to Obama himself on video making the promise for the USA to become Brazil's biggest customer for oil. And although I am not a Libertarian I concur wholly with the recent postings of sledneck, your ideals are based on some sort of living breathing document and his is of an absolute reading of the Constitution as was intended by the Framers. We are truly in a fight for that Constitutional ideal as was the design by our Founders against those that desire a Global Elitist system. UN's Agenda21 and ICLEI are our biggest threat in the long term and Obama in the short. Vote accordingly in 2012, vote for America.

0

sledneck 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott, I acknowledged to mtroach that the bike stand I took could be seen as hypocritical. However, I think we both know there is a difference between two adults voluntarily entering a land deal vs. a non-consenting child being pulled into potential danger. Now, when you say "the money to build... from you (and them)..." I'm not so sure. As I explained, you could not tell a cop when he pulls you over that it is ok not to have the car you are driving registered because, after all, you have a jeep at home that IS registered. Wouldn't fly. EVERY vehicle I put on the road has to be registered; hence my call for equal treatment of cyclists.

Now, when you say you " in no way... agree with..." me does that mean you do not believe american workers are in any way responsible for their employers seeking "greener pastures". The ever escalating union and "union-like" demands are not a factor in pushing jobs overseas? You really want to stand on that? Do you mean that the voluminous red tape of local, state and federal agencies does not encourage flight of business? Really?? You mean you actually think it reasonable to expect patriotic allegiance from international corporations who have fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders; and it is more reasonable to expect such from them than from public officials who are elected, paid and under oath to show such allegiance?? You really gonna tell me thats what you really, really, really believe??? I do not think you do. I think you may WISH it but in your heart-of-hearts you know better, no?

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Seeuski: Do you understand that you claiming to have proven anything without actually doing so makes you look silly? You cling to your conspiracy theories like a cold old lady to her snuggie. No matter how much we drill here in the US.....we will still have to import oil. That is a simple fact. I would rather buy oil from Brazil than Saudi Arabia. So link and twist the President's words all you want. It does not add any validity to your false claims. And.....you never saw my post about Chesepeake until the other day because you are too busy with your pointless partisan posting to actually process anything. Whether I posted during our previous conversations or not (I did!) should have no impact on the question I asked you directly. Are you of the supposed libertarian mindset voiced by sledneck or do you believe that US citizens should also consider the interests on our nation when making business decisions? I am not saying they do not have the right to do what they did. I am saying that their decision will have a negative effect on the US. I thought we could find common ground on issues like individual responsibility, not only to oneself and financial interest, but also to the country that allows us to live out those freedoms, but maybe you do not share those beliefs.

Here is a link to show you that oil production in the US is up.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8698ae80-4503-11e0-80e7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1PpWyTF4c

This link as well as the other is the official industry site for the numbers., It is not partisan It is factual. You are entitled to your opinion and to divise or repeat whatever conspiracy theory you want. You are even entitled to interpret facts in a different manner than I. You are not entitled to your own facts. But to clarify...Brazil drilling in the gulf in your opinion is bad, right? So what about the actions of Chesepeake or the Iowa farmer? Could you please also provide proof that Brazil or China were allowed to go around the permitting process? Could you please also clarify the difference in their drilling in the gulf, as oppossed to BP? Should it be only US companies? I could agree with that? Should Chesepeake have been blocked from their deal in Texas with China? I could agree with that. BTW, that is not the only lease that they did exactly the same thing with. Maybe you should look that up. I was only trying to ascertain your view on that topic, not revisit the issue and provide you with additional facts that you will continue to ignore, but once again I was sucked in.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sledneck---I still believe in governemnt of the people, for the people and by the people. I believe companies will always seek out the cheapest source of labor. That has been proven out in our history. I believe the American worker is not lazy. I believe that a companies or individuals responsibility to themesleves, family, society and country encompasses much more than the simple short-term quarterly profit and loss statements. I do believe in patriotism. I believe that your claims about business are nothing more than exscuses that in the past would have been seen as less than virtuous. While it is a company's right to act as they please within the law, it does not mean that it is always the correct thing for them to do. I have not written this country off yet, as it appears you have. Maybe I am an idealist, maybe you are a cynic. Maybe the glass in half-empty....maybe half full. In the long-run outsourcing has a negative impact on our economy. Just as the "farmer" made his decision (if he does exist) made in our little scenario, corporations also make theirs. Greed is not a virtue. Always seeking short-term profit often proves disasterous for companies. It could have the same effect on our country. I think the framers had alot more in mind than simply laying out a business plan or proforma when they wrote the constitution.

0

Brian Kotowski 3 years, 1 month ago

I am bemused at the left's outrage over outsourcing. One of the few times I agreed with President Carter was when he launched an aggressive diplomatic initiative to Japan, in an effort to convince manufacturers there to "make here what they sell here." It ultimately resulted in Nissan locating a plant in the US (Tennessee, IIRC). Outsourcing for thee, but not for me.

Somehow, I suspect there is no similar outrage over President Obama's attempt to shut down Boeing's new billion-dollar facility in SC, which would put over a thousand Americans out of work, and eliminate the several thousand more American jobs to be added there once the plant ramps up to full capacity.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sep---Making here what u sell here would be an interesting concept in the US. Convincing a foreign company to make things here and create jobs, sounds like a good thing. Putting people to work sounds like a good thing. Your synopsis of the Boeing situation was lacking in facts. Yes, it comes down to where in the US the plant should be located and right to work states vs other states, but no one is trying to shut anything down. BTW, Boeing is probably the single most governmental subsidized corporation in the US. So, I do not feel a lot of empathy for their complaints. I do understand the elected officials from SC wanting the jobs in their state, that's their job to advocate for the interests of their constituents.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

@Scott, I am under no misconception about winning an argument against you or any other Obama supporter, it can't be done. I laid out a series of questions above which leads to the answer of why oil production in 2010, a year after Obama took office, was higher than in 2009 as is the facts. I don't deny that, as you are suggesting, what I am arguing though is the actuality of today's truths as it pertains to Obama's energy agenda. Google search "epa blocks drilling" or anything of that nature and enjoy your reading of how Obama uses outlying agencies to achieve an actual agenda all while claiming another to the American public, you. I have learned how to tell when Obama is lying, you can hear his voice. It is what he is actually doing that is the reality, and that is shutting down US energy production and allowing access to those resources to foreign Countries. Sorry if that doesn't stir well in your latte but it is truth. Heck, some farming in California was shut down because of a little minnow and oil drilling in Texas because of a lizard, that is the EPA doing the dirty work while O claims otherwise.
As far as Chesapeake is concerned, again I am for the free enterprise system and we would not be having this argument regarding that companies necessary decision to survive if Obama was friendly to US economic production more than he is to globally spreading our wealth through regulatory actions that keep our US Companies from competing. Yea, the Boeing issue is exactly on topic here, I hope that if Boeing loses to the actions of the Obama manipulated NLRB they just take their damn production elsewhere until we replace this lousy Marxist, destroy America from within Regime in 2012.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

WOW!! I just read Scotts post above after I posted, Fascism is alive and well I see. So in his humble opinion large US manufacturers such as GM, Chrysler and now Boeing better get in line because they are Government entities? That is my argument all along, get Government the hell out of our lives, our healthcare, our kitchens, our schools or we will all be told where to live, what to eat, what to read. Oh, it's already happening, I am certainly having a nightmare.

FREEEEDOMMMMM

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

@Scott,

Please list what you claim are my conspiracy theories so I can rebut you. I assure you that if you go back 3 years and see what I warned about Obama on these forums I can hang my head high that I have been proven fairly accurate. I do remember saying something about how he will make Carter look like an amateur or something like that.

Do we have a law known as the "war powers act"? Just wondering because the left wanted to impeach Bush even though he had Congressional approval and UN sanctions, but Obama? Not so much. He claims that there are no hostilities in Libya, you on board with that one?

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See----are you capable of staying in topic? Is the war powers act even constitutional? You do realize that the current Speaker of the House who now loves the act voted to overturn it correct? But I will give you this one. I would definitely agree that bombing the crap out a place is definitely hostilities. It is laughable that any senator would even open their mouths at this point considering they passed a resolution calling for exactly what we are doing by a unanimous vote. The House on the other hand does have reason to complain. I would also like to ask why the Libyan leader was taken off the terrorist list in the first place. Didn't he also kill Americans? Is there a certain number that you have to kill before you become wanted dead of alive? The only positive that may come out of Libya, besides justice for the killing of American citizens, would be the exsposure of the overall weakness of NATO without US firepower and money.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See- Everything you post is a conspiracy theory. I am glad you expanded your vocabulary to include the word Caliphate. I guess watching Mr. Beck does pay off for you. . Oil production in the US is also up in 2011. I guess the administration was not able to quite kill it off yet. If you take money from the government...there are always strings. Just like if you take money from a bank. If you don't like it, do what Chrysler did and pay it off. Don't accept the money as Boeing did and does and then whine about it. Look into their trade practices a little. I know you will not like what you find. You still never answered the difference between BP and China or Brazil drilling in the Gulf. You didn't because their is no difference, but you just couldn't bring yourself to say it. Your opinions and underlying philosophy appear to be situational. You are so caught up in bashing the current administration that you are a walking contradiction.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See----I just re-read part of what you wrote. Oil companies including Chesepeake are making their largest profits in history. They do not need to sell out US leases to China to survive. That is non-sense. Next you will be explaining to me why US companies need to hire illegals in order to lower naufacturing costs. Your defense of greed in the name of free markets is laughable. Is it not reasonable to expect and demand that US citizens demonstrate the slightest loyalty to our country? If the administration of President Obama or any administration sells us out, then you and I are on the same page. Why is it ok in your world-view for a corpoartion, such as GE (I assume you would defend them as vigorously as you do Chesepeake) to sell us out? I would contend that as Americans we are morally obligated to act in the best interest of our country. As, I said we may disagree and debate what that is, but surely selling oil/gas leases in Texas is not in that best interest. I believe in personal responsibility. That responsibility does not change with the election cycle.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

As I thought, do you not get dizzy spinning so much? You answered my easy question with a question. What conspiracy theory am I guilty of?

Do you really want to get into the GE/Obama connections? How about the Chicago Climate Exchange, George Soros, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, Obama, his Fannie Mae buddies and the whole Cap and Trade conspiracy? Oh, and BP has a hand in it too?

I am not a fan of one oil company over another Scott and we may have some common ground on BP and the Gulf, but is BP the only oil company that WAS drilling in the Gulf? And BP is involved with the Global Governance/business model that Cap and Trade represents and was working to secure a great seat at the feast of the US Taxpayer ripoff. I am a fan of voting for an American as President who will allow American companies to exploit our natural resources for the benefit of Americans, and I know that foreign oil imports can't be eliminated, but they can be vastly limited in a year or two. Obama HAS sold us out so I guess we are on the same page but are just hearing a different drummer. The big difference between us, and this may be proven in 2 years, is that if a new Republican POTUS comes into office and continues with similar policies I WILL express the same condemnation then as I do now, and I suspect then that you will be flipping and also condemning that which you now seem to defend. One last thing on Libya, Ronald Reagan dropped a bomb on Khaddafi's tent and killed some family members of that tyrant, Khaddafi gave up his weapons when Bush took out Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi has been dormant for decades, so why can't you see that this so called "Arab Spring" is what the Arabs say it is? It is a movement of by the Muslim Brotherhood to bring Sharia Law into all of these territories under one Caliphate. Glenn Beck is but just one messenger of the voices and words of the Arabs who are saying the truth of the uprising, I could care less that people like you choose to ignore facts for fantasy. Go ask Lara Logan if her rape in Egypt by Muslims in full view of thousands and to the chants of, Jew Jew Jew was a part of the move to Democracy. Go to Islam Watch or some of the true info sites and learn something, does everything have to be Glenn Beck this or FOX News that? Sheeesh.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

My defense is of Capitalism over Fascism/Marxism, which you seem to love so much.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See---You are fun to debate with. You even brought up one of your conspiracies in your post. So, capitalism in your opinion trumps personal responsibility to one's country? Got it. It is fine to do whatever you want in the pursuit of money. Got it. You see corporations as not being made up of individuals (including shareholders) who should be held to the same level of personal responsibility as an elected official. Got it. As long as you can stick a label on it and call it good or bad, it doesn't seem to matter what the details or truth of a situation is. Got it. And you know that you got Caliphate from Glen Beck....you know it, come on admit it. I have not defended anything that I did not support with facts. I am not a Fascist/Marxist/Socialist or whatever you would like to label me. But if it makes it easier for you to label me, that is your right. It is fairly Alinky-esque of you but it is your right (threw you a bone with that one) I could extend time looking at the other conspiracies that you have posted, but I won't. You know very well what they are. I would just caution against allowing yourself to believe conspriracy theories put out by corporations and their beneficiaries to cover for bad behavior. Such as, we had to sell out to China to survive. Did you even believe that when you typed it? Have a great one. Looks like winter is back for the day.

0

Brian Kotowski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott:

I'm unclear which facts you believe me to be “lacking.” The NLRB complaint asserts that Boeing's SC plant is “illegal”, and alleges that the company transferred union jobs from the Northwest to the Southeast. The NLRB is pursuing the complaint on behalf of the Machinists Union, which is demanding that the SC jobs be located in the Puget Sound area, and that the company further commit to setting up shop for any new projects in Washington state, where employees have no choice regarding union membership.

Your lack of empathy for the company mirrors my own for the union, which would be delighted to flush all those SC jobs down the toilet.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sep---I did not mean to imply that you did not know the facts, just that they were not in your post. My hope and I would assume yours is that the jobs stay in the US regardless of the state they are located in. In this specific case, I think I agree with you. I don't see opening a new plant in another state as being retribution for the strike in Washingotn, although it is obvious why Boeing wants to open it's plant in SC. But, I think we both agree that should be their choice.

0

Brian Kotowski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott:

The Nissan plant I mentioned in my previous post is indeed located in Tennessee, and it presents an instructive paradigm, when compared to GM's efforts in the same state. In 1985, GM built its multi-billion dollar Saturn plant TN (unlike President Obama, Ronaldus Magnus did not object to a company bolting for a right-to-work state), about 50 miles from the Nissan plant, and took the United Auto Workers union along for the ride. One of the stated objectives was to demonstrate that Americans would prevail in side-by-side competition with the Japanese. The Saturn/UAW partnership never turned a profit, and Saturn, as we all know, has gone the way of the Edsel. Non-union Nissan is as healthy as the proverbial horse.

Here's where we may disagree: the administration's action against Boeing, if successful, would establish an onerous precedent. Namely, that a unionized company can only operate where union membership is cumpulsory. The government ought not to be in the business of making private sector job creation more difficult and costly. Erecting those kinds of barriers will only make outsourcing more likely, as manufacturers look for the most competitive environments in which to make & sell their products. Call them traitors if you wish, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

@Scott

I am wasting my time I know but because you asked, here are the Muslims back in February calling for a Caliphate at a rally in Tunisia where the so called "Arab Spring" first erupted. You will see that at 36 seconds in Al Kaliffa is called for and then at 1:36 again they chant down with democracy down with capitalism we want a Caliphate. I couldn't stand to listen or watch to anymore of their jibberish past that point. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b9_1297972756

Need more: http://www.cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/arab-call-for-jerusalem-based-caliphate/ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144978 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/israel-muslim-member-of-knesset-calls-for-caliphate.html I'll throw this in for fun since Weiner is in the news, this just goes to show how deep the Brotherhood has infiltrated. http://shoebat.com/documents/secretConnections.htm

Spend some time at Walid Shoebat's website and learn something he is an ex PLO terrorist who now exposes the Islamic threats we face. www.shoebat.com

As far as your continued spin on the state of affairs of our Republic and the descriptions you use for our corporate economy, I think anyone who reads your posts above can see for themselves that you spin the yarn.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See- I never brogught up "Arab Spring" or whatever name the media likes to call it. I never said Islamist were not calling for a Caliphate. To say that is all that is going on in the middle east is not true. There are some who want true democracy. We should support those and oppose the others. Seems simple enough, but it definitely gets a lot more complicated. If we want to have influence on the outcome of the revolutions, then it's going to take our investment. The downside is...we don't have it.

I would call new drilling drilling that did not exist before. The issuance of new permits under new guidelines for work that was already in progress is not new drilling. The numbers I gave you earlier are actual new rigs drilling for oil in the US. Your point is well taken and I would call what the administration is calling new drilling not new at all.

I don't spin anything. I give you facts that counter whatever over generalized talking point you throw out. I believe we as Americans should shop localyl first (when possible), then at the state and then at the national level. That to me is responsible behavior that in the long run will benefit us locally and nationally. I think anyone who sells leases of our non-renewable natural resources to a communist government should be called out on that. I think any shareholder who continues to own stock in that company should be called out on it. It is their right to do so, but I don't think it is responsible. I think we should only import goods from countries with the same environmental standards as we have. I think we should not import goods from countries who provide child labor. I think we should be responsible. Can we agree on that?

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See---That is some wacky stuff. I would put their chances of accomplishing their goals at about the same level as YVHA of accomplishing their affordable housing utopia. I think you may have missed my point. I know those organizations/individuals have their delusions of importance and adequacy. If they were not so incompentent, I think they would or could be dangerous. Capitlaism...which I do support, cannot become an exscuse for short-term gain that undermines our long term economy. We must rebuild our middle class and their buying power within the economy. That is not a function of government. That takes individual Americans committed to doing that. It can't be legislated. And yes, I do see companies like Chesepeake, GE.....etcmaking short term profit motivated decisions that will eventually destroy them and our economy. If your primary customers don't have money to buy your goods...then eventually you go belly up.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

Well Scott, yes we have reached some common ideas here but I present to you that this Administration is purposely creating a business climate where our US corporations are being saddled with regulations that inhibit what you describe above and force those corporations to seek foreign investment in order to achieve their needed goals. Yes, I do agree that any Company, local or Fed Government that provides access to the US's natural resources for foreign exploitation is as you say. It is one thing for US business's to sell US made products abroad and another for our Government to allow outsiders to have what our own corporations are restricted from, like oil or farming etc. The EPA is doing just that. Even Glenn Beck agrees.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sep--I actually don't think you and I disagree. I am pro-union because I believe higher wages benefit both union and non-union memebers. Membership should be a choice not mandatory. That decision should be privately made by an employee and should not be coerced by either side. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. It will probably drag on to the Supreme Court. Boeing will not outsource the jobs to another country primarily because the majority of their exports are backed by the US Ex Im and have to manufacture their products in the US. That is why I said I do not empathize with them in this case. I believe companies should locate in whatever state they choose and that the right-to-work decision should be left to the voters in the state.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See--You crack me up. I think outsourcing began under Clinton and has continued to speed up. It did not start under this administration. You almost made it in your last post....but not quite. Chesepeake was producing oil in the fields prior to them entering their agreement with China. I still don't even know if the farmer in Iowa exists....but I bet he was growing crops before he sold the land to China...hence the farmland and farmer. You yourself have labeled the oil companies as liars when it comes to the tax structure in Alaska. Isn't it just possible that they could be stretching the truth on this occassion also? While government is responsible for setting policies. It is us as individuals who determine how we spend our money. Cheaper isn't always better in the long-run. I have nothing against profits. I do not support profits at any cost. And yes headquartering in the US, our military might protecting your ability to do business around the world, our infrastructure supporting your business needs,our fairly stable economy (I said fairly) and the US workforce being the most productive in the world (we currently are) should inspire some type of loyalty from corporations, and yes they should actually pay their share of taxes.

0

Jeff_Kibler 3 years, 1 month ago

"Boeing will not outsource the jobs to another country ..."

According to this article it appears they've done exactly that:

"Boeing also announced an agreement Monday with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China for a parts factory in China. It will start by making rudders for the 737."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015374513_apeufranceairshowboeing2ndld.html

Speculation on my part? Perhaps it was a negotiated condition from the Chinese for Boeing to land some significant orders.

0

Brian Kotowski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott:

Your "live & let live" perspective re: union membership seems at odds with what I perceive as your support for the administration's iniative against Boeing. If the NLRB complaint is upheld, it eradicates the choice you've said you support. And the precedent it would set all but guarantees American manufacturers looking for greener pastures abroad.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

@Jeff---It is my understanding that the two things are not related. The work in SC is not the same as what Boeing agreed to do in China. But I would suspect the undisclosed purchaser in the link you provided is probably China.

Here was my specific point on Boeing:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-15/business/ct-biz-0916-wto-boeing-20100915_1_illegal-subsidies-export-related-tax-wto-panel

@SEP: It is a union initiative not the administration's. Although the administration clearly supports it. I don't think it will be upheld in court was my point. The NLRB does not have the final say. The plant is actually operational in SC and is providing jobs. My point on Boeing was, if you get five billion in subsidies, loan guarantees for your exports etc. You know there will be strings attached. It just seem this particular company really wants it both ways. They want the government subsidies but then play the victim over the union issue. I believe there should be some middle ground. Companies should pay decent wages, unions should not make unrealistic demands and if the US gives you billions in subsidies, you should show a little loyalty. There is a direct correlation between the decline of unions and the decline of middle-class income. I don't think the US should engage in a race to the bottom when it comes to wages.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

@Jeff---It's the 787 being built in SC and the 737 rudders being built in China. But I am sure that in some convoluted way, we will probably subsidize their plant in China. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. This has been in the works for several years, but I am sure Boeing would love to make the two related for their benefit.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008435563_webboeing25.html

0

Brian Kotowski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott -

You write: "It is a union initiative not the administration's."

A distinction without a difference. The NLRB is a political organ whose directors (a General Council & 5-member board) are all Presidential appointees. The current batch was installed by President Obama last year. They wouldn't be hounding Boeing without the administration cheering them on. Even the reliably liberal LA Times & Washington Post are lambasting the White House over this one.

You write: “...if the US gives you billions in subsidies, you should show a little loyalty.”

To whom? The union? Boeing can only be considered “loyal” if it capitulates to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and denies employees the union/non-union choice you say they're entitled to make?

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sep- Like I said, no matter their decision, I think it will be overturned by the courts. Sorry if I was confusing. My loyalty comment was aimed at the plant in China or the threat of outsourcing, not this issue. I do see this as a pointless battle being endorsed by the administration. The jobs in SC are not jobs that were moved from Wahington. They are new jobs. I don't see creating new jobs in another state as retalliation. The plant is operational. Seems like they dug up an old fight to me. I do see the benefit in unions. I do not believe in mandatory membership. But like I stated previously, I don't think we should be in a race to the bottom for manufacturing wages. Unions, like corporations are made up of individuals, if you get 5 billion in subsidies, a little loyalty to the American taxpayer union or non-unionized would be appropriate.

0

sledneck 3 years, 1 month ago

When I said ethanol is a scourge on this nation what I meant was ethanol, unions, and subsidies.They all are.

0

Brian Kotowski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott -

If, as Jeff Kibler suggests, the Chinese facility was a stipulation imposed by the Chinese as a condition of the transaction, then it sounds like Boeing made a sound business decision. If the Chinese were unwilling to make the deal absent that compromise, and Boeing had walked away, then perhaps Airbus Industrie would have landed the contract. Boeing would have remained “loyal” to Americans it was unable to employ. I'm sure our French counterparts would drink a toast to our principles.

Your collectivist leanings, while perfectly honorable as an intellectual exercise, nonetheless ignore the harsh realities imposed by human nature. Your prescription to transact only with entities which practice the policies you regard as enlightened and honorable would exempt us from doing business with some of the largest economies on earth. Most notably, China, India, and Russia. Business, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If we retreat into a principled cocoon, our competitors (worthy and unworthy) will rush in to fill the void. Their citizens reap the benefits; ours are left sucking hind teat.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

Sep- How can i disagree in any way with a post that ends in "sucking hind teat"?

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

Scott, who do you intend to vote for in 2012 as POTUS? Just wondering.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See----- I am not sure at this point. (That is the truth). I would wager that our votes will cancel each other out. So, we have that going for us. Who do you believe will be the Republican nominee? I ask that seriously. I am very aware of whom you would like to run. But, an individual actually has to enter the race before you get to vote for them. I ask this in all seriousness. What is your perception of Gov Palin's reluctance to enter the race? I think she wants to position herself as the "leader" of the tea party. So that regardless of the outcome of the nomination process, she will get to have influence. Just my thoughts.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

I make no bones about it that I am a Sarah Palin supporter for many reasons but I also like a few of the others, 1 being Michelle Bachmann. Sarah Palin is not trying to be a leader of the Tea Party movement, she is a leader in the Tea Party movement but there are several different factions to it. The Ron Paul section in my opinion is NOT a part of the Tea Party movement that you and most of the left would identify with as the groups consisting of the main movement. The Ron Paul gang are very Libertarian and seclusionistic and as Paul himself says, pro legalizing all drugs. Many are 9/11 truthers and rabidly anti Israel and anti Semitic. Paul also has many positions that are in line with the far left like open borders and pro Palestinian. Anyway, back to Palin, it is my belief that she will either announce at the end of Summer or endorse Bachmann. She will not endorse someone like Paul or Romney because of flaws in their value system. I will vote for most anyone but Paul, Obama or any other Progressive. As for you Scott, I am sure you voted for Obama and I am fairly sure you wish to vote for him again as if you would consider a GOP candidate? No way. Unless maybe you have a secret inkling for someone like Ron Paul in which case your vote would not be canceled out by me, as I would not vote. Well, maybe a write in, but it won't come to that. I don't think any of the others have a chance, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain, Newt etc. The only other possibles would be if Chris Christie or Perry entered the race, I would consider either after some personal vetting. I am concerned of a few things with both and would have to clear it up before being comfortable casting my ballot. As I say many times, vote accordingly in 2012 for it is the last chance to save this great ship.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

You are too secretive in your response but all too easy to read from your writings/postings as to your heart.

0

scott selby 3 years, 1 month ago

See----I could have said it's none of your damn business....but decided to take the high road and gave you an honest answer. I hope you are still having a great day. The election is still a long ways away, the raprture guy may be right. Then all of your postings will have been in vain.

0

seeuski 3 years, 1 month ago

Here is something for the open border society, I remember when Chuck McConnel was lampooned on these forums for his letter praising Baumgardner for his report on the damage done to the wild lands by the illegals and how none of the so called earth lovers cared. The fire in AZ was caused by an illegal activity near the border in a closed park in an area that has been posted as a danger to travelers because of illegals crossing the border. Our Gov't posted those signs down there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaRaMH...

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.