DagNabbit wrote: Ransom cracks me up: This is the same guy that screams "Burn more oil!" at the top of his lungs every week. You want to F the Saudis? Stop buying their oil. (PS: Now I'll make the Sunday edition where he goes on and on about how the Keystone pipeline will free us from the Saudi trap. Hint: It won't). - Red, White and Saudi Privilege
Dear Comrade DN,
I don’t scream, “Burn more oil!”
I scream: “Drill more oil.”
Comrade, it may come as a big surprise, but despite the wishes of liberals like you, our economy depends upon oil. That’s not a fact that’s likely not to change much in the next fifty years.
There are two ways to face this issue: 1) Use less oil; or 2) Find more oil.
I have no issue with using less oil if you can give me an economical alternative, but you can’t. Every policy that you and your liberal cadres want involves me opening up my checkbook and paying for energy schemes that don’t work, cost jobs and lead to higher prices.
And by the way, I don’t want to screw the Saudis, as you suggest I should. I was objecting to Saudi nationals being here who hate America. I also object to paying $95 per barrel of oil when the economy should be supporting prices closer to $55 per barrel. The $40 difference is mainly attributable to Obama and his nutty professors like Dr. Stephen Chu who thinks $5.00 a gallon gasoline would be a swell idea.
But here’s the main point. We got a lot of oil here. Five years ago liberals teamed up with the “settled science” crowd to claim that we didn’t have enough oil and gas here in the United States to make a difference in our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
But that’s not true, as even scientists now have to admit.
A new report from the UK research team at Price Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re wrong.
Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.
Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal, everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a select few.
This latest discovery that we are right and they are wrong, shouldn’t shock us.
Here’s the frightening truth: “Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,” writes PWC in its February, 2013 report Shale oil: the next energy revolution. “There is potential for shale oil production to spread globally over the next couple of decades. If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.”
PWC estimates the GDP increase to be between 2-5 percent in the US. Using today’s GDP figures that’s between $300 billion and $750 billion, with my estimate being a nice midway point in the PWC estimate.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone pipeline issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the “green” economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse.
It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
And of course the Left cannot afford that kind of nonsense. Jobs and economic growth? Peace and prosperity? Where does it all end?
I can tell you this much Comrade Dag: In the future, it’s going to suck to be a liberal like you.
adendulk wrote: John I see you still get your can beat by Ezra Klein. Is that why you are so bittter about everything and have taking your mind completely taken of reporting on economicle writing just slurs and blurs. - Occupy and Redistribute D.C
Dear Comrade Dulk,
I see you’ve missed a dose or two of medication.
Let’s try this easy mental health background check.
Quick: Tell me how many fingers I’m holding up.
If you guessed one (1), you are right!
Now, guess which one.
jsullivan154 wrote: Oh John, Your fact is ? "All people in w/IRA's are going to be taxed some point or another" LIAR Are you now going to champion the causes openly AGAIN of all the Poor Millionaires because their Accountants and Bankers aren't doing an adequate job of shirking their Tax responsibility as Americans or Pretend Americans living where ever they choose while collecting their Social Security checks via a cayman Tax deferred carried interest account. John you're so great? Shut the Front Door and don't let the door knob hit you in the ... on the way out? I love it though when You and You're Right way only party show You're true colors...Sociopaths. - Obama’s Success: The Poor Get Poorer, And The Rich Get Poorer
Dear Comrade 154,
All IRAs are taxed to zero eventually. That’s a fact.
“Dividends, interest and capital gain growth within an IRA are not taxable, writes National Educational Services, the retirement group for public employees, but “monies eventually removed are taxable as ordinary income. Withdrawals prior to age 59 1/2 may be subject to taxes, and a 10% IRS penalty.”
Generally speaking, an inherited IRA still has to be emptied by the time the owner’s normal life expectancy is up.
So if Mitt Romney died tomorrow, his IRA will have to be drawn down to zero by the year he would have reached 87, approximately. At the time of each distribution, the money would be taxed at normal tax rates for that bracket.
Obama’s only two interests are: 1) punishing rich people; and 2) getting money now, regardless of whether it has a negative impact on tax revenues later.
Stop letting the door-knob hit you on the head on the way out. And stop taking Comrade Dulk’s medication.
Pamela247 wrote: I wish everyone including John Ransom would stop talking like this has not been a brilliant plan by the Marxists in control. The New World Order has been planning this for 100yrs. You think when Clinton was pres that the two attempts by terrorists and ultimately 9/11 during the Bush pres were accidents? Mr. Ransom don't you read other Enews on your computer? - The Unintended Consequences of Intended Consequences
Dear Comrade 247,
The tin foil hat you have on is preventing me from sending the secret messages I’m thinking right now. Please see Comrade 154 in the pottery room. He’ll be the guy disguised at Son-of-Sam’s dog, a Labrador Retriever named Harvey. He’ll be throwing clay on the wheel with his feet.
Don’t take his medication.
Signing out now.
Arley2 wrote : Good article John, I am, at times, not that fond of your articles when they are comprised only of venom and sarcasm (even though there's plenty to be venomous and sarcastic about) but I like your writing A LOT when you bring forward facts, evidence, and examples. Without facts and evidence, opinion articles on TH aren't any better than when Chris Matthews opens his mouth to spout huge bytes of ignorance. Thanks. Keep up the good work. - Fourth Estate on Marion Barry Obama’s Plantation
I’m not very fond of your comments especially when they are full your comparisons of me to Chris Matthews. I’m much fatter than he is and tons poorer too.
But at least I’m a better writer.
There is a place for opinion and a place for facts.
I try to keep my readers entertained and use a variety of writing styles to accomplish that.
But I get your point.
I will always regard the Simpsons as one of the greatest TV shows ever. But yet, I never enjoyed the Simpsons episodes that featured Lisa Simpson because they always dealt with some moral non-issue for me.
So just consider the pieces that I write that you don’t like the entertainment equivalent that the “Lisa Simpson” episodes occupy for me.
The rest of my work you may contemplate however you will. I won’t object.
But no more Chris Matthews stuff. That’s way too ornery and mean.
Afroggy wrote: I never call anyone an ass--I look on the dray animal in a good light as well as the part of human anatomy of that name. A pimple on a hemhorroid, however, would be abhorrent to me and I liken such to you and your disdain of others. - God Pees on Liberal Media and Tells Them It’s Just a Tea Party
Dear Comrade Chris Matthews,
Please see above.
Carlos7 wrote: John, I was reading this article on my Kindle earlier, and thinking to myself: "Mike Adams really outdid himself." - God Pees on Liberal Media and Tells Them It’s Just a Tea Party
At least you didn’t call him Chris Matthews.
But what you did do was bad enough. Shame on you.
wtmoore1 wrote: Usually I refrain from commenting on Ransom's columns, but this is a joke. The right wing media has exploded into a frenzy in recent days trying to link disparate stories together in an effort to show that their preconceived notions of massive governmental conspiracy must be true. Too bad a few bad actions do not form the backbone of Obama being out to get "you and you and you and me." What a joke. If Ransom hadn’t spent months attacking Obama for ridiculous things, and repeating blatantly false charges, this claim to have validated his conspiracy theories might have credibility. - Fourth Estate on Marion Barry Obama’s Plantation
Dear Comrade WTM1,
The great timing ward goes to you, Ms. Moore.
I usually refrain from making comments on your comments, because I rarely read your comments. But I do want to thank you for being a regular reader of mine, even if you claim not to comment much on my articles because of the blatantly false, right-wing conspiracy theories that I spin out of thin air.
To be “fair”- to claim a word from your friend Barack Obama- I don’t actually make up these theories myself.
I have help from other members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC).
For example, just today, CBSNews, the epicenter of the VRWC made up this laughable charge about Obama: Evidence emerges that Obama administration official knew of IRS targeting during 2012 campaign
Or how about this one from the Chicago Tribune, Obama’s hometown newspaper, which kept it’s participation the VRWC on the down low by twice endorsing him so they could lull him into a false sense of security: “Taken together, though, these controversies project a less flattering image of truth-shading, hubris and intrusion. In the week of humiliating disclosures that started with last Wednesday's congressional hearing on Benghazi, Americans haven't seen the administration exhibit ... one shred of humility.”
Or how about this one from the very top of the VRWC, the New York Times, titled Spying on The Associated Press: “The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.”
Thanks for pointing out that the preconceived notions of massive governmental conspiracy must be untrue because I made them up.
Don’t forget to pick up you award after your acceptance speech.
And remember acceptance is the last stage of the death spiral.
Stuart95 wrote: Is it possible that strong, persistent stands against abortion and homosexuality will hurt, rather than help, the Republican Party? Is it possible that a winning margin's worth of swing and independent voters either don't care about those two issues, or believe the government should not be involved? - The Broken President’s Broken Politics
Dear Comrade Stuart,
I don’t see much evidence that either abortion or gay marriage is an issue that changes general elections, although that’s not true of primary elections.
You are right about this: A wide margin of voters- voters who will vote either party- really don’t care much about either issue, either way. One way that you can tell that either party is in trouble is how much time each party spends talking about either issue.
In 2004, Karl Rove spent quite a bit of time putting together a coalition for Bush-Cheney that was solidly pro-life and helped pass the marriage amendment. In part, they did this because they couldn’t count on the base to support their record in the Iraq war or their record on an economy that, well, let’s say was in the late stages of a very mature business cycle.
I see 2012 as the counterpoise election by the Democrats, wherein Obama’s coalition relied very heavily on turning out the base on issues like gay marriage to distract from a really poor economic and governing record.
And here’s the primary problem with that strategy: Putting aside my own personal views on the issue, most voters have nuanced views socially. They care more about good government than they do about wonkish policy details that relate to either abortion or gay marriage. They have only so much bandwidth and when basic issues like the direction of the economy under the federal government don’t get resolved, and then things go bad, it rebounds on the people in charge.
Let’s face it, most people who decide elections go for the lesser of the two evils, rather than vote affirmatively for the proposals put out by the winning side.
Unless someone wins by a landslide, and even then it’s questionable, claiming a mandate can be very dangerous.
For example, Obama just found that out with taxes and spending. He thought he could dictate practically any tax policy just because he won the presidential election by a few votes.
We have had a very narrowly divided government for the last fifteen years. That has not changed because of gay marriage or because of abortion. Nor do I expect it to change because of social issues in the future.
One area where Republicans do have opportunities to pick up swing voters is with Hispanics. The GOP needs to figure out an immigration policy that shuts down the border first and foremost and then deals with the $2 trillion underground economy that largely has been created by not closing the borders.
We should be embarrassed that our black market is now approaching the size of failed countries. The size of a country’s black market is a key indication of the efficacy of a country’s policies.
While Obama bellows about the offshore corporate dollars that he wants to bring back to the U.S. he should be more worried about the onshore collars that epitomize the failed policies of both parties on immigration.
TunTavern wrote: The proof is there. Both the poor and the country in general has always done better under democrats:
Now, you won't accept those facts...but guess what---that doesn't matter. Because it's not we who need to sell our party--we're winning. It's YOU that had better learn to lay out your arguments and do some explaining. Maybe then your tired, beaten old party can rise from its grave. -Country Infected with Virus Democratus
Dear Comrade Tun,
So some guys wrote a book that PROVES that Democrats are better than Republicans when it comes to the economy.
Oh, now we are in real trouble.
Their argument seems to rely on mostly stock market returns.
Here’s one problem that I have with that thesis: No one can seriously argue that the policies fostered by any president can be measured in increments of time that start when a president is inaugurated and ends when he leaves office- especially when it comes to the stock market.
Are we to believe that under Clinton defunct grocery start-up webvan.com, according the CNET, one of the biggest dotcom busts ever, was correctly valued in 2000 at $1.2 billion or more correctly valued under Bush a few months later with “an accumulated deficit of $830 million”?
Because if the authors are seriously arguing that stock market performance should start and stop with inaugural dates, then the authors are right: the ability to deceive the public is a major asset for any president. It seems, in fact, under their premise, that we should look for presidents who can help sustain the fiction that whatever.com will go higher and higher forever and home prices can never ever be defeated!
I can pick them apart all day long, but I’ll leave you with one last example before I close.
In 1995 president Clinton, with bipartisan support, repealed safeguards to the banking and investment business known as Glass-Steagall. The repeal of those safeguards was in some measure responsible for the financial debacle that culminated in the fall of 2008. Yet these same authors would have you believe that Clinton was the greatest president for the economy ever.
And if you believe that, I guess you’d vote for Obama too.
That's it for this week,