I am becoming a disgruntled Obama supporter

[futurebeachbum]

The decision re whether to have a moratorium on deep water drilling is a Hobson's choice: damned if you do & damned if you don't.

I agree with you.

I think if the Administration had launched a massive effort to analyze everyone of those rigs from a safety and security POV (after all, its only 32 rigs) they might have gotten a different reception. They could have applied a few hundred personnel to the effort and had it done in a few weeks. The President could have said, we retained x-hundred specialists and this analysis will be completed in x-weeks and any unsafe rigs will remain out-of-service until fixed. That would have allayed a lot of fears.

For all we know, they've got one guy in DC tackling this thing in his spare time.

This is just one more example of how the Administration has bungled or appeared to bungle every aspect of dealing with this crisis.

 

[poppy]

I agree with you.

I think if the Administration had launched a massive effort to analyze everyone of those rigs from a safety and security POV (after all, its only 32 rigs) they might have gotten a different reception. They could have applied a few hundred personnel to the effort and had it done in a few weeks. The President could have said, we retained x-hundred specialists and this analysis will be completed in x-weeks and any unsafe rigs will remain out-of-service until fixed. That would have allayed a lot of fears.

For all we know, they've got one guy in DC tackling this thing in his spare time.

This is just one more example of how the Administration has bungled or appeared to bungle every aspect of dealing with this crisis.

And you're going to round up x-hundred specialists with no ties or loyalty to oil industry from exactly where?

 

[Andy A]

Geo, I've read every post in this thread and the idea you proposed was a good one but a year or two too early. It also provided a thoughtful, provocative and emotional perspective of those many who posted. I have no candidate. As I said, it is too early.

 

[futurebeachbum]

And you're going to round up x-hundred specialists with no ties or loyalty to oil industry from exactly where?

You have to go to industry to find the expertise. Loyalty to the industry, not to a company within the industry, would be a good thing. Loyalty to the industry means that they are unhappy with outcomes like the Deepwater Horizon.

Only an idiot would want experts not from the industry. You wouldn't hire a plumber as an expert witness in a medical malpractice suit.

That being said, consultants loyalty is to the money from the engagement.

The government could easily categorize the safety issues of concern pay them a base consulting fee plus an incentive for each major problem they uncover. They could also attach a couple of government personnel (hopefully from technical, not bureaucratic roles) to monitor each team.

 

[sarawind]

Disgruntled with Obama? You might want to partake of an adult beverage before you read the following.: Really, really looking forward to the next election.

Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The ?marriage penalty? (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The ?Medicine Cabinet Tax? Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The ?Special Needs Kids Tax? This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they?ll be in for a nasty surprise?the AMT won?t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress? failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families?rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or ?depreciate?) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be ?depreciated.?

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the ?research and experimentation tax credit,? but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual ?required minimum distribution.? This ability will no longer be there.



?On March 24, Senate Democrats had the opportunity to exempt our veterans from Obamacare?s new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs. But 54 Democrats voted against the measure. They chose to side with the tax-and-spend crowd in Washington over our wounded warriors,?said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. ?This is one of the many reasons Harry Reid and the Democrats did not want Americans to read the 2,500 page health care bill before it was passed.?
In addition to those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Veterans Affairs reports the following number of veterans from America?s wars:
World War II: 2,079,000
Korean War: 2,507,000
Vietnam War: 7,569,000
Desert Shield/Storm: 2,254,000


Read more: Americans for Tax Reform

 

[30A Skunkape]

Ha ha ha you are a funny guy, excuse me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes. Hang on I've almost got it-just a little more-there I'm ready. Whew! that was a good one. Now since you haven't supplied a number or anything else I'll assume you don't know jack, if you you do please share. At the time I posted I had read different claims with the numbers ranging from 10,000 to 120,000 so I truly don't know. I've also read different estimates the disaster could cause the loss of up to 1,000,000 jobs not related to the oil industry if it isn't stopped, many of those right here in our area. This number is likely high but then again no one seems to really know because this is far from over. My problem with Jindal is he seems to be mostly concerned with the oil industry jobs while the fisherman and others who make their living directly or indirectly from the gulf are going downhill fast. My concern is the damage being done locally so maybe we are both being selfish. I don't read the Dailykos or sites like that and I'm not on the internet every day but when I am, for news I read CNN, MSNBC and Fox and whatever links are related to the articles on those sites. If you can find time to refrain from your false assumtions and silly accusations I would like to ask you again to please educate me with whatever knowledge you claim to have on the subject.

OK, sorry to have taken a personal jab at you if you took it that way. My point is that I don't think people realize the amount of domestic petroleum these deep water rigs are producing. Furthermore, there is a paradoxical, seemingly incompatible to outsiders, relationship between Louisianians (and to some degree other gulf states, too), petroleum and fisheries. The economic impact to Louisiana is obvious. Please consider these two bits:
Oil, Fishing Industries Entwined In Mississippi River Delta : NPR

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2e-XfZCYg0[/ame]

My concern is the 'trickle up' effect the drilling moratorium will have on the whole country. I'm sure I don't need to remind you how bleak yesterday's employment figures were. I don't understand how an executive order, made seemingly without any logic, to suspend all deepwater activity in this context makes any sense. I agree with a temporary halting of activity after the BP disaster, but why and how did the term of 6 months come about? It seems to me there would be two priorities after this explosion, namely, certifying that future deepwater activity is as safe as is possible and to minimize the economic impact in the near term. I fear that we will see a rise in gas prices and a concurrent rise in transportation costs, making goods and services more expensive for all the country. Less disposable income in people's pockets leads to less consumption, worsening retail pain. That is the last thing our economy needs at this time.

At any rate, I feel good about my position as the federal judge who heard the challenge to the ban came down on my side. Additionally, Secretary Salazar seems to slowly but surely hinting that the moratorium will be softened some. Like it or not, we are terribly petroleum dependent and will be for decades to come. We have the raw materials to ensure our security now and the knowledge that we need to wean off the black gold in the future.

By the way, I do appreciate your enthusiasm for what you believe to be true.

 

[scooterbug44]

I understand what you are saying about oil drilling and domestic production, but IMO both the Gulf Coast and the overall US economy will greatly benefit in the long run by embracing green jobs and opportunities instead of continuing to cling to the petroleum industry.

Even if we are too dumb to learn anything from the current disaster and clamor to drill everywhere there is oil, the day will still come (as it has before) when we are facing an economic or energy crisis because we are dependent on dwindling oil and have no feasible options.

Heavily polluting industries that continue to shed jobs as they get too big to fail are not the future. Green collar jobs that improve our communities, health, and bank accounts are.

 

[ugabuga]

The Federal Judge who ruled against the 6-month moratorium on deep water drilling benefited financially from that ruling: he had stock in several oil & oil services companies.

It is possible that he made the correct ruling on the law, irrespective of the fact that he benefited financially from his ruling. However, this sort of situation erodes the people's confidence in the judicial system. It seems to me he should have recused himself to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety.

I know the decision has been appealed, but does anyone know whether a higher court might call for a retrial just based on the Judge's possible bias?

 

[Andy A]

The Federal Judge who ruled against the 6-month moratorium on deep water drilling benefited financially from that ruling: he had stock in several oil & oil services companies.

It is possible that he made the correct ruling on the law, irrespective of the fact that he benefited financially from his ruling. However, this sort of situation erodes the people's confidence in the judicial system. It seems to me he should have recused himself to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety.

I know the decision has been appealed, but does anyone know whether a higher court might call for a retrial just based on the Judge's possible bias?

Your source, please. It is ludicrous to think just because a judge owns some stock in an oil company he will rule in their favor. If he owns a mutual fund he probably owns stock in an oil company. If he recused himself every time some issue concerning a corporation in which he owned stock came before him, he would be doing so often if he is at all thrifty. If he is swayed by the stock he owns in any corportation, he shouldn't be on the bench in the first place. Having said that, all judges are human, too, and some may be swayed by things that should not affect their decisions. I don't think that was the case here. The president clearly acted in a manner above his degree of authority and it isn't the first time and probably won't be the last.

 

[futurebeachbum]

Your source, please. It is ludicrous to think just because a judge owns some stock in an oil company he will rule in their favor. If he owns a mutual fund he probably owns stock in an oil company. If he recused himself every time some issue concerning a corporation in which he owned stock came before him, he would be doing so often if he is at all thrifty. If he is swayed by the stock he owns in any corportation, he shouldn't be on the bench in the first place. Having said that, all judges are human, too, and some may be swayed by things that should not affect their decisions. I don't think that was the case here. The president clearly acted in a manner above his degree of authority and it isn't the first time and probably won't be the last.

Exactly.

This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would prevent a judge from ruling on a case involving the Federal government if he happened to own any savings bonds or T-bills. After all, the rates are variable and his actions could in some way impact the ultimate yield.