Obamonomics

[Shady]

Clearly before you called Obama a Destroyer Of Industry, you did some research and found out various industries were rapidly losing revenue and shedding jobs as a result of Obamas policies.

Absolutely. Did you not read the links I posted at the beginning of the thread? 1,000 jobs lost in Wisconsin directly because of Obama's agenda. A rig moving out of the Gulf, directly because of Obama's unconstitutional moratorium.

Here's some more.

"Each direct rig job is supported by four to five support personnel, whether working offshore or on the beach," Dr. Hunt said. "Beyond that, as this study shows, communities across the United States depend on the wages of offshore workers.

"The economic trauma that this deepwater moratorium is causing spans the entire United States," Dr. Hunt warned. "Offshore workers call all of America home."

Link

Up to 1,000 jobs at Bucyrus International Inc. and its suppliers could be in jeopardy as the result of a decision by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, funded by Congress, to deny several hundred million dollars in loan guarantees to a coal-fired power plant and mine in India.

Link

WASHINGTON Diamond Offshore announced Friday that its Ocean Endeavor drilling rig will leave the Gulf of Mexico and move to Egyptian waters immediately making it the first to abandon the United States in the wake of the BP oil spill and a ban on deep-water drilling.

And the Ocean Endeavor's exodus probably won't be the last, according to oil industry officials and Gulf Coast leaders who warn that other companies eager to find work for the now-idled rigs are considering moving them outside the U.S.

Link

Those are jobs that are gone directly because of the Obama administration's policies. Sometimes facts can be stubborn things.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Shady

[punked]

Not at all. In fact, Canada provides more oil to America than Iran. And Canada and Mexico provide the vast majority of oil to America. However, when I talk about bankrupting an industry, it was the coal industry Obama was talking about. And now with his unconstitutional moratorium, he's doing a good job against the American oil industry as well.

That is beside the point. Fact is if the largest consumer of oil gets itself off oil it will put those oil giants (including Canada out of business) and like it or not that is a good thing for America. Less imports and more exports for the US.

[Bonam]

That is beside the point. Fact is if the largest consumer of oil gets itself off oil it will put those oil giants (including Canada out of business) and like it or not that is a good thing for America. Less imports and more exports for the US.

Losing our oil export market in the US would not put "Canada out of business".

[sharkman]

That is beside the point. Fact is if the largest consumer of oil gets itself off oil it will put those oil giants (including Canada out of business) and like it or not that is a good thing for America. Less imports and more exports for the US.

Wake up, there will be no getting off of oil by these means or it will completely collapse the economy. The only means is when new technology provides a viable alternative, just as technology has done in the free market since it began.

[dre]

Absolutely. Did you not read the links I posted at the beginning of the thread? 1,000 jobs lost in Wisconsin directly because of Obama's agenda. A rig moving out of the Gulf, directly because of Obama's unconstitutional moratorium.

Here's some more.

Those are jobs that are gone directly because of the Obama administration's policies. Sometimes facts can be stubborn things.

Right so if a thousand jobs are lost that means an industry is destroyed?

[GostHacked]

Right so if a thousand jobs are lost that means an industry is destroyed?

A thousand jobs is a drop in the bucket. The oil industry may hurt for a short while, but it will rebound.

[punked]

Wake up, there will be no getting off of oil by these means or it will completely collapse the economy. The only means is when new technology provides a viable alternative, just as technology has done in the free market since it began.

Yeah when did the free market build the Dams which provide 20% of all power in the US? Oh yeah it didn't it was government money which built those. I wish right wing crazies would pick up a book instead of slipping free market into every sentence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah when did the free market build the Dams which provide 20% of all power in the US? Oh yeah it didn't it was government money which built those. I wish right wing crazies would pick up a book instead of slipping free market into every sentence.

See the early history of Niagara Falls power generation...private investment.

[punked]

See the early history of Niagara Falls power generation...private investment.

Ummmmm the Robert Moses GS the largest generating station on the falls giving off 2,400,000 Kilowatts built with government money from the Feds and the State of NY.

[Shady]

Yeah when did the free market build the Dams which provide 20%

When they were allowed to. You do realize there is no government construction company. Private companies built those dams, when they were given permission to build them on government land.

[Shady]

A thousand jobs is a drop in the bucket. The oil industry may hurt for a short while, but it will rebound.

Yeah, I'm sure those thousand families now out of work feel the same way.

It was the coal industry in Wisconsin that lost the 1,000 jobs. And more will go if the Obama administration continues the same policy. As for the oil industry, Obama's unconstitutional moratorium has already cost many thousands of jobs. And oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf. And when an oil rig goes, it doesn't come back for many years. Stop making excuses for Obama, the destroyer of jobs and wealth.

[punked]

When they were allowed to. You do realize there is no government construction company. Private companies built those dams, when they were given permission to build them on government land.

If you mean the government provided the material and the money then you would be right. See those dams were built with government money it had nothing to do with the "free markets".

[Shady]

If you mean the government provided the material and the money then you would be right. See those dams were built with government money it had nothing to do with the "free markets".

Private companies aren't allowed to build on government land without permission. So yes, the free market isn't in play. But the government provided money, not materials. There are no government construction companies, only private companies the government hires. But those dams could have been built without the government. Especially if there's money to be made by producing electricity, which there is. Your nonsense about the dams only exist because of the good grace of the government is completely false.

[punked]

Private companies aren't allowed to build on government land without permission. So yes, the free market isn't in play. But the government provided money, not materials. There are no government construction companies, only private companies the government hires. But those dams could have been built without the government. Especially if there's money to be made by producing electricity, which there is. Your nonsense about the dams only exist because of the good grace of the government is completely false.

Accept that isn't true in many projects the Hoover Dam being one the government provided materials as well Shady. Again read a book. Those dams would have NEVER been built with out the government Shady don't be silly, and if they were power from them would have cost an arm and leg.

The point is when we look at energy history the government built the grid, they built a large amount of the plants and almost all of they hydro-electrical stations. Saying they should butt out now is stupid and what someone who knows nothing would say.

Edited July 13, 2010 by punked

[TimG]

If you mean the government provided the material and the money then you would be right. See those dams were built with government money it had nothing to do with the "free markets".

Quebec Hydro is a cash cow for the Quebec government. Governments insist on building hydro dams themselves because they are so profitable. If the government allowed the private sector to bid on a public resource the private sector would have no problems raising the cash. Edited July 13, 2010 by TimG

[Shady]

Quebec Hydro is a cash cow for the Quebec government. Governments insist on building hydro dams themselves because they are so profitable. If the government allowed the private sector to bid on a public resource the private sector would have no problems raising the cash.

Exactly! But that's something punked doesn't understand.

[GostHacked]

Yeah, I'm sure those thousand families now out of work feel the same way.

Well it sucks either way when/why jobs are lost. But not everything can be put on Obama's shoulders.

It was the coal industry in Wisconsin that lost the 1,000 jobs. And more will go if the Obama administration continues the same policy.

I am sure you can help me out and tell me what policy exactly is being continued to kill jobs?

Edit .. ok I see what you are talking about, but the article is about 300 jobs lost in Wisconsin. The coal plant and mine are located in INDIA. Not the 1000 jobs you claim. Or is that number of 1000 suspected jobs lost because of other entities supporting the industry?

As for the oil industry, Obama's unconstitutional moratorium has already cost many thousands of jobs. And oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf. And when an oil rig goes, it doesn't come back for many years. Stop making excuses for Obama, the destroyer of jobs and wealth.

Come on Shady. The fact that an oil rig blew up in the gulf also has an impact of jobs lost, and how the administration and future administrations deal with oil companies in the gulf. Not just in the oil industry, but fishing and tourism are affected as well. The Deepwater Horizon is having some wild and wide effects on the whole industry in the gulf.

Edited July 13, 2010 by GostHacked

[dre]

Yeah, I'm sure those thousand families now out of work feel the same way.

It was the coal industry in Wisconsin that lost the 1,000 jobs. And more will go if the Obama administration continues the same policy. As for the oil industry, Obama's unconstitutional moratorium has already cost many thousands of jobs. And oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf. And when an oil rig goes, it doesn't come back for many years. Stop making excuses for Obama, the destroyer of jobs and wealth.

Nobody is making excuses for Obama. People are just laughing at your weak and failed attempts to substantiate your overheated rhetoric and hypbole.

[punked]

Quebec Hydro is a cash cow for the Quebec government. Governments insist on building hydro dams themselves because they are so profitable. If the government allowed the private sector to bid on a public resource the private sector would have no problems raising the cash.

Accept the government was the only one with the capital to build dams in Quebec. You guys fail to realize no one invested in those projects when they had the chance because it took 50 years to pay off and turn a profit. The government does it because they can take on long term debt, electricity is essential, AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN DO IT. There is a reason almost every hydro electric project in the world was built by governments. The same goes for renewables. Learn something from history and stop talking about the free market for two seconds. Mixed markets work better and make more sense.

[TimG]

You guys fail to realize no one invested in those projects when they had the chance because it took 50 years to pay off and turn a profit.

Then why did Alcan pay to build its own dam on the Nechako in 1950s?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6685/is_n4_v22/ai_n28673732/

Once, the answer was obvious: a river is raw material, latent power, input for industry. In the early 1950s Alcan Aluminum built the Kenney dam across the Nechako River in northwestern British Columbia, reversing much of its flow to create a reservoir and generate power for its smelter at Kitimat.

Why did Alcan in 1990s want to pay for large expansion of the dam?

Hydro projects are hugely profitable. Governments build them because they want 100% control of the wealth they produce.

[punked]

Then why did Alcan pay to build its own dam on the Nechako in 1950s?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6685/is_n4_v22/ai_n28673732/

Why did Alcan in 1990s want to pay for large expansion of the dam?

Hydro projects are hugely profitable. Governments build them because they want 100% control of the wealth they produce.

Because you found one example out of the tens of thousands of hydro electric projects in North America does not make you right. As for this Dam it was designed to provide power to a smelter it was never for power generation to be sold to the people of BC. Not only that but because of the poor design the BC government has had to spend money to fix the dam already. Sorry you are dead wrong.

[Shady]

Accept the government was the only one with the capital to build dams in Quebec.

That's complete nonsense.

Anyways, start your own thread about government dam building. This is about government destroying private sector jobs by idiotic policy.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Shady

[punked]

That's complete nonsense.

You right there are plenty of organization with the 165 million dollar to build the Hoover dam during the great depression Shady. Or the 13 billion dollars the Diamer-Bhasha dam is going to cost today.

[TimG]

Because you found one example out of the tens of thousands of hydro electric projects in North America does not make you right.

Actually, one example does completely refute your claim that private corporations could not afford to build the dams. Alcan could in the 50s. It really does make a difference why they built it. The fact is they could access the capital they needed. The only one who is wrong is you.

Not only that but because of the poor design the BC government has had to spend money to fix the dam already.

I would need to hear Alcan's side of the story before I take that claim seriously.

[TimG]

You right there are plenty of organization with the 165 million dollar to build the Hoover dam during the great depression Shady. Or the 13 billion dollars the Diamer-Bhasha dam is going to cost today.

The river was not going anywhere. If the government did not do it in the 30s a private corporation would have in the 50s.

Since its inception in 2004, the 787 has had research and development costs ranging from more than $10-12 billion

.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Boeing_787.htm

If Boeing can come up $12 billion for a new plane a private company could generate that kind of capital to build a dam provided there was a legal system in the country that protected their investment.

The Bell Canada takeover required $50 billion in debt all raised from private sources.

Your argument that the private sector cannot build dams does not hold up to most rudimentary scrutiny.

Edited July 13, 2010 by TimG