Why is Gasoline average $3.85

[CBT]

He was UDT (BUDS 58), which pre-dated the SeALs; still a bunch of bad dudes, IMO.
No, UDT and SeALs were two completely different animals at the time he was UDT.

[rayjay]

No change in the price of gas here. If anything it went up. :bs:

[SC Cheesehead]

No, UDT and SeALs were two completely different animals at the time he was UDT.

I did not know that!

I thought the SeALs evolved from the UDT organization, thanks for setting me straight.

[CBT]

I did not know that!

I thought the SeALs evolved from the UDT organization, thanks for setting me straight.

His brother was there also.

[sailsmen]

As gas prices soar, House mulls new drilling, while Senate weighs ending oil tax breaks
Published: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 9:00 AM
By Jonathan Tilove, The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune

WASHINGTON -- The bipolar congressional debate about how to rein in rising gas prices intensifies this week, with the House considering two bills to expedite and expand offshore drilling while Senate Democrats convene a hearing on whether the five largest oil and gas companies really need their tax incentives and deductions with prices so high at the pump.


Bruce Halmo, The Sheboygan Press via APA beer slogan on the side of a truck shows up above a vehicle filling up at a gas station in Sheboygan, Wis., Wednesday. Congress is debating appropriate measures to deal with rising gas prices.
The opening salvo of the week came Monday from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry trade group -- supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council -- holding a news conference at which they accused Democrats of plotting a shameless grab of oil company profits to pay for their spending plans.

"This is just a plain, ordinary money grab, not even a thinly veiled money grab," said Martin Regalia, chief economist of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who said the oil companies are simply a ripe target at a time of large profits because of high gas prices.

"It's a vindictive use of the tax code," said Brian Johnson, the senior tax adviser for API.

The Senate Finance Committee has asked brass from the top five oil companies -- ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and Conoco Phillips -- to appear before a hearing Thursday on oil and gas tax incentives and rising energy prices, with an eye to moving legislation that would repeal tax breaks for those companies. The plan by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would include the elimination of the Section 199 domestic manufacturer's deduction, a reduction in their foreign tax credit for royalty payments to foreign governments, and the imposition of an excise tax on certain leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

But the industry representatives sought to redefine the vocabulary of the debate, suggesting that the industry enjoys no "unique tax credits or deductions," that it is just another industry, playing by the same or stricter tax rules as every other business, and turning a profit for their investors, who, ultimately, are almost anyone with an investment portfolio or retirement account.

Johnson said higher taxes would only punish an industry that already is taxed at an effective rate of 41 percent, way above the norm, that contributes more than $85 million a day to federal coffers, that supports the employment of 9.2 million Americans and 7.7 percent of the U.S. economy, and that the nation is depending on to lead it out of recession. "Higher taxes would also hurt the owners of oil and natural gas companies," Johnson said. "Not oil and gas executives who hold only 1.5 percent of shares in the companies, but the nearly 100 million people who have shares in their 401(k) plans, their IRAs, their mutual funds and their pension plans. These and institutional investors like colleges and universities are the true owners of almost 99 percent of the value of America's oil and natural gas companies."

Asked why the Big Five oil companies couldn't simply settle for somewhat smaller profits if their taxes rose, Regalia, the Chamber economist, said their shareholders and investors wouldn't allow it.

The industry backs efforts by House Republicans to expand oil exploration and drilling.

The House last week approved a bill to require the Obama administration to move ahead this year with lease sales -- three in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia -- that were canceled by the administration after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And the House is expected to begin debate today on two other bills to expedite permitting and open new areas to drilling.

The Republican approach has been denounced by the Obama administration, and it doesn't look as if it will get anywhere in the Senate. Meanwhile, Baucus' tax plan would be hard-pressed to get the 60 votes it needs in the Senate. However, some executives from the Big Five have indicated that tax breaks are less essential when prices are high, opening the door a crack for some sort of broader tax compromise, especially as congressional budget negotiators search for ways to close the budget gap.

The political pressure from the pump might ebb a bit, though, as some analysts are predicting a decline in gas prices this summer.

For now, Democrats, with a backdrop of huge profits and high gas prices, are happy to beat up on Republicans as toadies of industry.

As Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., put it last week, "GOP now stands for Gas and Oil Party."

Meanwhile, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., tweaked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, suggesting that if Reid is looking for an industry with unnecessary tax breaks, he might turn his gaze from the oil and gas industry to the gold-mining industry in his home state of Nevada.

In a letter to Reid on Monday, Vitter noted that "Secretary of the Treasury John Snyder stated in 1947 that 'there are no grounds which would justify instituting a subsidy to encourage the production of gold in this country.' Sixty-four years later, 'subsidies' are still being supplied to gold producers during this period of soaring gold prices."

Jonathan Tilove can be reached at jtilove@timespicayune.com or 202.857.5125.

[rayjay]

What they should be mulling is a SEAL raid on Wall St speculators.

[SC Cheesehead]

"Asked why the Big Five oil companies couldn't simply settle for somewhat smaller profits if their taxes rose..."



The Dems just don't get it, do they?

Corporate Tax increases ultimately will get passed along to the consumer...:shake:

[sailsmen]

What they should be mulling is a SEAL raid on Wall St speculators.

And the DNC HDQ and the Sierra Club and the NRDL who are promoting policies solely to drive up the cost of Gas to make "GREEN" a viable alternative.

What these "speculators" are speculating is that those who are promoting higher gas prices have more political power and will prevail.

Why did Rep Waxman insert in a bill a clause outlawing the Fed from buying any products derived from Shale Oil??? Could it be the Fed is the largest buyer of oil related products???

[kernie]

So gas has just taken a huge jump here, $1.31\litre yesterday, $1.39 when i was out a few minutes ago. That's like a 30 cent jump per gallon.

Correct me if i'm wrong, there is a glut of crude, crude price has dropped big, refineries are at less than capacity due to weak demand.

So my gas is at an all time high.

All the president's fault right?

:shake:

[CBT]

So gas has just taken a huge jump here, $1.31\litre yesterday, $1.39 when i was out a few minutes ago. That's like a 30 cent jump per gallon.

Correct me if i'm wrong, there is a glut of crude, crude price has dropped big, refineries are at less than capacity due to weak demand.

So my gas is at an all time high.

All the president's fault right?

:shake:

What happens is:

Hedge fund managers speculate on oil "futures", which makes no sense, you don't actually own anything, yet you can drive up the price of it. Anyway, this is how they speculate. Buy ********s of oil "futures", start a rumor that the price of a barrel of oil will hit 200 dollars (or Skittles, whatever all you people in Upper Minnesota use for cash:D) and when the price jumps, SELL. When price drops a little, BUY. Then start a rumor that there will be a shortage of oil because of the war in (insert name of any third world ****-hole country here) that is certainly going to happen, wait for price to jump back up, SELL. Keep doing this until gas is 10 dollars a gallon.

[sailsmen]

The President has stated his policy is to make "GREEN" competitive and to drive up the cost of fossil fuel.
It appears his policies are working.

Pres Obama made this clear when he was campaigning for "Hope and Change"
"Barack Obama's 'Gradual Adjustment' to Higher Gas Prices

ARLINGTON, Va., June 12 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, on the fourth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."

This Week In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred If Higher Gasoline Prices Happened More Gradually:

In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred A "Gradual" Increase In Gasoline Prices. BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..." HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?" BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now." (CNBC, 6/10/08)

Watch Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gehaf7_TBAs

Barack Obama Has Called For Taxing Coal And Natural Gas -- The Two Largest Sources Of Electricity In America:

Barack Obama Told A Texas Newspaper: "What We Ought To Tax Is Dirty Energy, Like Coal And, To A Lesser Extent, Natural Gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

Coal Is The Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For Nearly 49 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, www.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

"The U.S. Has The World's Largest Coal Reserves, With The Western U.S. Accounting For 55 Percent Of Current U.S. Coal Production." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

Natural Gas Is The Second Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For 20 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, www.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

"The U.S. Is The World's Largest Consumer And Second-Largest Producer Of Natural Gas." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

Barack Obama Has Called For A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax:

Barack Obama Is Proposing A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said. ... Among the options Illinois Senator Obama is mulling is imposing a 20 percent tax on the cost of a barrel of oil above $80, said [Obama adviser Jason] Grumet, who spoke at a conference in Washington today." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. "From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

The Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Supply And Increased Demand For Imported Oil. "The WPT had the effect of reducing the domestic supply of crude oil below what the supply would have been without the tax. This increased the demand for imported oil and made the United States more dependent upon foreign oil as compared with dependence without a WPT." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

During The Eight-Year Imposition Of The Windfall Profits Tax, Domestic Oil Output Fell To Its Lowest Level In Two Decades. "Skeptics who want to check the data need to search no further than the eight-year 1980s run of the energy industry windfall profit tax. During that time, domestic oil output fell to its lowest level in two decades." (Editorial, "A Bleak Future," Investor's Business Daily, 5/29/08)

The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Prices At The Pump. "The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost." (Editorial, "Windfall Accounting Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)

[sailsmen]

Heritage's Ben Lieberman: The Windfall Profits Tax Ended Up Harming Consumers With Increased Energy Prices. "The track record for punitive measures like the windfall profits tax shows that they usually harm consumers along with the targeted industry. ... In the end, the tax hurt consumers more through higher energy prices than it helped them through higher tax revenues, which turned out to be far lower than originally predicted because the tax discouraged production." (Ben Lieberman, "Raising Taxes On Oil Companies Is No Way To Reduce Gas Prices," www.heritage.org, 3/1/06)

Obama Plans To Pay For A Number Of His Proposals With The Tax. "The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Congressional Research Service Found That When The Windfall Profits Tax Was Implemented From 1980 To 1988, Gross Revenues Were Significantly Less Than Projected. "The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) Said Obama's Windfall Profits Tax Is Bad Energy Policy; It "Will Produce Less Energy And Not More." MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell: "John Breaux, you are from the oil patch. How do you feel about your candidate talking about a windfall profits tax?" Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA): "Well a windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. When we had a windfall profits tax back in the 1980s, we produced less energy than before we had the tax. A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies, but until we get the guys and women who produce the energy working with those that consume it, we are never going to solve the problem. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy and not more." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 6/9/08)

FLASHBACK: Obama Is Following Jimmy Carter's Economic Policies, Supporting Higher Taxes During A Time Of Economic Weakness And Imposing A Windfall Profits Tax:

Carter Raised Taxes During An Economic Decline, Which Further Weakened The Economy. "There were two other occasions in recent American history when government raised taxes going into economic decline. Herbert Hoover tried it in the early 1930s; Jimmy Carter tried it in the late 1970s. Carter was the lucky one: He got 'only' a deep recession, Hoover got the Great Depression." (Editorial, "The Gingrich Recipe," The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, 9/14/90)

President Carter Urged Congress To Enact A Windfall Profits Tax "Without Delay." President Carter: "These [energy independence] efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment." (President Jimmy Carter, Speech, Washington, D.C., 7/15/79)

In The U.S. Senate, Barack Obama Voted For Higher Energy Taxes That Would Have Driven Up The Cost Of Oil And Gas In America:

Obama Voted In Favor Of An Amendment To Add A $32 Billion Tax Hike Package To The CLEAN Energy Act Of 2007. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #223: Motion Rejected 57-36: R 10-34; D 45-2; I 2-0, 6/21/07, Obama Voted Yea)

The Tax Hike Would Have Hurt Domestic Oil And Gas Manufacturing. "Meanwhile, most of the revenue-raising offsets in the measure would affect the oil and gas industry, which would lose a deduction for domestic manufacturing and face a new tax on operations in the Gulf of Mexico." (Richard Rubin, "Baucus Says Energy Tax Package Can Be Revived, But Details Are Sketchy," Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/10/07)

The Tax Hike Would Have "Contributed To Higher Gasoline Prices." "[The tax increase] would have excessively burdened oil companies that operate in Louisiana and other oil-producing states. It would have discouraged oil exploration, and contributed to higher gasoline prices." (Editorial, "A Sensible Energy Policy," The [New Orleans] Times-Picayune, 6/23/07)

A Heritage Foundation Study Found The Tax Increase Would Have Raised Gas Prices To Over $6 By 2016. "A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank showed that the proposed tax increase would boost the average price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon to $6.40 in 2016." (S.A. Miller, "Senate Votes To Raise Auto Mileage Standards," The Washington Times, 6/22/07)

Obama Voted At Least 3 Times To Impose A Temporary Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. (S. 2020, CQ Vote #339: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 9-45; D 40-3; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #331: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 0-55; D 34-9; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #341: Motion Rejected 33-65: R 0-54; D 32-11; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea)

In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased From Out Of State

In 2003, Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchases. "Creates the Gas Use Tax Law. Beginning October 1, 2003, imposes a tax upon the privilege of using in this State gas obtained in a purchase of out-of-state gas at the rate of 2.4 cents per therm [sic] or 5% of the purchase price for the billing period, whichever is the lower rate. Amends the Gas Revenue Tax Act to eliminate an exemption on October 1, 2003 and to provide that beginning with bills issued to customers on and after October 1, 2003, no tax is imposed under the Act on transactions with customers who incur a tax liability under the Gas Use Tax Law. Effective October 1, 2003." (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

The Tax On Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois Was Estimated To Cost $42 Million Annually To Illinois Businesses, Making It One Of The Largest Increases In Illinois In 2003. "One of the largest increases will be a new 5 percent tax on the sales of natural gas bought from out-of-state suppliers, which could reap $42 million for the state. Virtually every manufacturer in Illinois could face increased costs as a result, business leaders said. But they doubt the increases will produce the revenue Blagojevich is counting on because businesses will move quickly to avoid the new or higher fees and taxes." (John Schmeltzer, "New Taxes And Fees Are Bad For Business, Industrial Leaders Say," Chicago Tribune, 6/2/03)

The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Steel Mills And Other Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

The Natural Gas Tax Threatened Jobs At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)

[rayjay]

So gas has just taken a huge jump here, $1.31\litre yesterday, $1.39 when i was out a few minutes ago. That's like a 30 cent jump per gallon.

Correct me if i'm wrong, there is a glut of crude, crude price has dropped big, refineries are at less than capacity due to weak demand.

So my gas is at an all time high.

All the president's fault right?

:shake:

NO, its not ALL the president's fault, but he could care less. When everything has been given to you all your life, you have no clue what its like to have to struggle to pay the bills. Go buy a electric car comrad. That will solve the oil price problem. The world will be a lovely place and the Chi Comms will love you for it.

[1 Bad Merc]

It's all a big scam and pretty depressing when you think about it....:help:

Just read today that Comed is looking for a yearly 2.2% rate increase to maintain the electric infrastructure here in Illinois. This is the same company that I paid for every year into the Nuclear cleanup and decommissioning fund for all the Nuke plants they built in Illinois. They then turn around and split the company into two separate entities -Excelon and Comed. They then sell the (Nuke Powered) electricity on the open market under Excelon and make large profits (not giving us a break here in Illinois for having paid into the decommissioning fund pool since the Nuke program started) and then use the other company Comed to cry poor and beg for tax increases. In the meantime they own the transmission lines (Comed) and any competing company must pay them to use them thus taking away our free market opportunity to benefit from the open market on electricity.

I tell you all - I really get sick of this crap. I feel like I am the idiot cash cow for all these MF'ers while still trying to scrape and save money to give my kids half a chance at college and the future.

Just ranting.....thanks.:argue:

[rayjay]

1 Bad Merc, 2.2%? Thats all? I forget what it was last fall that our two electric companies asked for, but it was way more than that. Not saying you don't have legit *****, just that it could be worse. The government here has no clue why NYS is hemoraging population or how to stop it. All they seem to do is tax the piss out of Joe 6 Pack and then ask why he left???? I'd hate to elaborate on what they just tried to force feed us for a contract that is 6 years past due. We decertified the union for that stunt.

[PonyUP]

So gas has just taken a huge jump here, $1.31\litre yesterday, $1.39 when i was out a few minutes ago. That's like a 30 cent jump per gallon.

Correct me if i'm wrong, there is a glut of crude, crude price has dropped big, refineries are at less than capacity due to weak demand.

So my gas is at an all time high.

All the president's fault right?

:shake:

It's not all his fault, gas prices began their huge surge northward 3 years ago, but Obama has not done anything to help the situation. He is addicted to energy efficient cars, which is a great concept, but Rome wasn't built in a day and that kind of drastic market shift needs to happen gradually and due to consumer demand, not driven by this administration desire to be the "Green President". When you force a product into an economy before the demand is there, it fails.

In addition, continuing to make it more difficult for the Dirty Energy companies to do business, drives up the costs of that dirty energy.

Casey made a great point about investors driving up oil prices by being able to trade it on the Futures market and an incredible low rate down, with the majority of the money borrowed. They can then drive up the futures, whihc causes the current market to rise, sell them off at a huge profit.

However oil companies have a point as well, if you have a 401K, a mutual fund, or an IRA, I guarentee you have invested in oil companies. Anything that is done to raise taxes on the oil companies and limit profitabilities will drive down the value of that stock immensly. It's not rich people that invest in oil persay, it's the everyday Joe that does most of the investing.

But trading on futures makes the oil market easily corruptable and cost effective to manilpulate.

It starts with Kennedy "We choose to go to the Moon" and this whole "by the end of the decade mantra", since he started it every President looking for greatness institutes some hairbrain scheme to be complete by x date.

Here's the difference, when Kennedy said it, this country was thirsting to go to the moon and prove superiority over the Russians. The simple fact is, this country, and even the world is not ready to convert fully to renewable energy, and no timeline is going to change that.

Innovation comes from a free market, but every Presidential push towards renewable energy force the hand of the market and will drive up supply prior to demand therefor spelling out it's impending doom.

Soccermom does not want to give up her minivan or SUV, Big Earl ain't giving up his F150 because he needs to haul stuff that a Hybrid can't do, and I'm not ready to give up my Maruader for a Pepsi can with a battery.

[CBT]

a Pepsi can with a battery.

....Joe reads this, wonders how Brad found out about his favorite sex-toy....

[rayjay]

Ponyup, you forgot one thing, our competitors on the world stage could care less about going green. It just distracts the USA from real problems and lets them gain more of an advantage.

[CBT]

Ponyup, you forgot one thing, our competitors on the world stage could care less about going green. It just distracts the USA from real problems and lets them gain more of an advantage.

That's true, the only way to even try to catch up would be:
1.) Eliminate unions
2.) Eliminate the EPA
3.) Everyone take a giant, immediate paycut.

[PonyUP]

Ponyup, you forgot one thing, our competitors on the world stage could care less about going green. It just distracts the USA from real problems and lets them gain more of an advantage.

Yup, Big +1 on that. As long as foreign companies don't have to play by the environmental rules that we play by, cheaper products will be more and more available internationally and more affordable thereby killing American Industry

Most products come from China, but most people come from VaChina

[PonyUP]

....Joe reads this, wonders how Brad found out about his favorite sex-toy....

Who do you think told Joe about it. My exercise ball wasn't doing it anymore, had to come up with something :lol:

[sailsmen]

The % thing about Hybrids is they use RARE Earth metals minned in China.

A top exec with one of the largest recycling cos told me the hybrid cars batteries cannot be recycled.:confused:

Although Hybrids do use less oil we need to look at what they are using and how much of that is in supply.

Kinda like all the people who think they plug in their electric cars and the eletricity magically comes from the AIR? Just ask them to explain where electricty comes from, don't even try and ask them what electricity is.

Our Nation's energy policy has been an F-16 for as long as we have had them.

[CBT]

I believe they are mined elsewhere, China just happens to hold the mining rights in the countries where the minerals are. They beat us to the punch if memory serves me correctly. They have "economic hit-men" just like we do, they just happen to have more money to get the job done.



The % thing about Hybrids is they use RARE Earth metals minned in China.

A top exec with one of the largest recycling cos told me the hybrid cars batteries cannot be recycled.:confused:

Although Hybrids do use less oil we need to look at what they are using and how much of that is in supply.

Kinda like all the people who think they plug in their electric cars and the eletricity magically comes from the AIR? Just ask them to explain where electricty comes from, don't even try and ask them what electricity is.

Our Nation's energy policy has been an F-16 for as long as we have had them.

[CBT]

Who do you think told Joe about it. My exercise ball wasn't doing it anymore, had to come up with something :lol:
....CBT reads this, puts 'Pepsi can' and 'battery' on grocery list....

[MM2004]

So,...

Price of crude was dropping and now, stations are raising the prices around here by 40 cents p/gallon!

WTF???

Cheapest right now is: $3.75 p/gallon
Stations raising it as I type to $4.15 p/gallon

- 87 octane

Bastidges.

Mike.

[SC Cheesehead]

The % thing about Hybrids is they use RARE Earth metals minned in China.

A top exec with one of the largest recycling cos told me the hybrid cars batteries cannot be recycled.:confused:

Although Hybrids do use less oil we need to look at what they are using and how much of that is in supply.

Kinda like all the people who think they plug in their electric cars and the eletricity magically comes from the AIR? Just ask them to explain where electricty comes from, don't even try and ask them what electricity is.

Our Nation's energy policy has been an F-16 for as long as we have had them.

Spot on!

Yep, let's move to all electric vehicles powered by electricity generated from totally green technology, so sayeth the tree-huggers. :rolleyes:

I came across this little piece of info recently, which puts the push toward the whole "green energy" into it's true, ludicrous, perspective:

http://www.rickety.us/2009/08/1-3-billion-wind-turbines-needed-to-replace-coal/

"[US electricity production comes from]...Petroleum liquids (49,505,000 megawatts), petroleum coke (16,234,000 megawatts), natural gas (896,590,000 megawatts), and other gases (13,453,000 megawatts) account for a total of 975,782,000 megawatts. To replace these sources of power you would need an additional 650,521,333 wind turbines [in addition to the ones currently in place]. In these calculations we are not replacing the 21% of electricity generated from nuclear power. Even so, removing fossil fuels from the equation mandates the need for 2 billion wind turbines. And remember, wind power costs twice as much as electricity from coal."

A wind turbine requires a footprint of approx. 0.25 acres of land. Typical turbine spacing in wind farms places the towers 5 to 10 turbine diameters apart, depending on local conditions.

2,000,000,000 wind turbines would require 500 MILLION acres of land for actual placement and an additional 2.5 to 5.0 BILLION acres of land allocated for placement of turbines within wind farms, that's a total of 3.0 to 5.5 BILLION acres of land used to produce electricity via wind power to replace our current fossil fuel power plants.

The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres... :rolleyes:

[CBT]

2,000,000,000 wind turbines would require 500 MILLION acres of land for actual placement and an additional 2.5 to 5.0 BILLION acres of land allocated for placement of turbines within wind farms, that's a total of 3.0 to 5.5 BILLION acres of land used to produce electricity via wind power to replace our current fossil fuel power plants.

The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres... :rolleyes:


.....math nerds.....:shake:

[sailsmen]

How long does it take to go from the surface production point to the gas station?

Perhaps China is such a large MFG it is using it's own REM resulting in them being the largest producer of REM. If a country is not using REM why mine it? China can probably mine REM in China for less than most other countries.

As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms
Mon, Aug 31 2009
By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.

That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.

Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012.

Among the rare earths that would be most affected in a shortage is neodymium, the key component of an alloy used to make the high-power, lightweight magnets for electric motors of hybrid cars, such as the Prius, Honda Insight and Ford Focus, as well as in generators for wind turbines.

Close cousins terbium and dysprosium are added in smaller amounts to the alloy to preserve neodymium's magnetic properties at high temperatures. Yet another rare earth metal, lanthanum, is a major ingredient for hybrid car batteries.

Production of both hybrids cars and wind turbines is expected to climb sharply amid the clamor for cleaner transportation and energy alternatives that reduce dependence on fossil fuels blamed for global climate change.

Toyota has 70 percent of the U.S. market for vehicles powered by a combination of an internal-combustion engine and electric motor. The Prius is its No. 1 hybrid seller.

Jack Lifton, an independent commodities consultant and strategic metals expert, calls the Prius "the biggest user of rare earths of any object in the world."

Each electric Prius motor requires 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of neodymium, and each battery uses 10 to 15 kg (22-33 lb) of lanthanum. That number will nearly double under Toyota's plans to boost the car's fuel economy, he said.

Toyota plans to sell 100,000 Prius cars in the United States alone for 2009, and 180,000 next year. The company forecasts sales of 1 million units per year starting in 2010.

As China's industries begin to consume most of its own rare earth production, Toyota and other companies are seeking to secure reliable reserves for themselves.

Reuters reported last year that Japanese firms are showing strong interest in a Canadian rare earth site under development at Thor Lake in the Northwest Territories.

A Toyota spokeswoman in Los Angeles said the automaker would not comment on its resource development plans. But media accounts and industry blogs have reported recently that Toyota has looked at rare earth possibilities in Canada and Vietnam.

[SC Cheesehead]

.....math nerds.....:shake:

That's my life, bubba.

(Yeah, well, that, and maybe :beer:)

[Bluerauder]

So,...

Price of crude was dropping and now, stations are raising the prices around here by 40 cents p/gallon!

WTF???

Cheapest right now is: $3.75 p/gallon
Stations raising it as I type to $4.15 p/gallon

- 87 octane

Bastidges.

Mike.

Everyone else has been paying $4.00 for nearly the past week. Guess the memo was delivered to KY a little late. They are just trying to catch-up to the National Average. Once they reach their quota .... the prices will "trickle" down until the next memo comes out. ;)

[CBT]

That's my life, bubba.

(Yeah, well, that, and maybe :beer:)
You had me at :beer:. :lovies:

[sailsmen]

Spot on!

Yep, let's move to all electric vehicles powered by electricity generated from totally green technology, so sayeth the tree-huggers. :rolleyes:

I came across this little piece of info recently, which puts the push toward the whole "green energy" into it's true, ludicrous, perspective:

http://www.rickety.us/2009/08/1-3-billion-wind-turbines-needed-to-replace-coal/

"[US electricity production comes from]...Petroleum liquids (49,505,000 megawatts), petroleum coke (16,234,000 megawatts), natural gas (896,590,000 megawatts), and other gases (13,453,000 megawatts) account for a total of 975,782,000 megawatts. To replace these sources of power you would need an additional 650,521,333 wind turbines [in addition to the ones currently in place]. In these calculations we are not replacing the 21% of electricity generated from nuclear power. Even so, removing fossil fuels from the equation mandates the need for 2 billion wind turbines. And remember, wind power costs twice as much as electricity from coal."

A wind turbine requires a footprint of approx. 0.25 acres of land. Typical turbine spacing in wind farms places the towers 5 to 10 turbine diameters apart, depending on local conditions.

2,000,000,000 wind turbines would require 500 MILLION acres of land for actual placement and an additional 2.5 to 5.0 BILLION acres of land allocated for placement of turbines within wind farms, that's a total of 3.0 to 5.5 BILLION acres of land used to produce electricity via wind power to replace our current fossil fuel power plants.

The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres... :rolleyes:
:lol::lol:

Do you believe in Unicorns and Rainbows? If you don't GREEN Energy as we currently know it will never work.

[MM2004]

Everyone else has been paying $4.00 for nearly the past week. Guess the memo was delivered to KY a little late. They are just trying to catch-up to the National Average. Once they reach their quota .... the prices will "trickle" down until the next memo comes out. ;)

Oh, we spiked to $4.00 p/gallon about 2 weeks ago.

It has trickled down over that time span.

Forty cents is a helluva jump!

;)

Mike.

[SC Cheesehead]

:lol::lol:

Do you believe in Unicorns and Rainbows? If you don't GREEN Energy as we currently know it will never work.

That's what I'm saying!

There are things we can do to improve our energy independence, and we should certainly do so; but the current green agenda, as being pushed by the WH and environmntalists is just plain :bs:

[Mr. Man]

Just paid 4.07.9 for 93 octane this afternoon in NJ. Decided to just fill the SB rather than wait to see what happens to the price 5 minutes form now.:rolleyes:

[sailsmen]

That's what I'm saying!

There are things we can do to improve our energy independence, and we should certainly do so; but the current green agenda, as being pushed by the WH and environmntalists is just plain :bs:

Proof you do not believe in Unicorns and Rainbows. Not even Leprechans or the Tooth Fairy. You must be a MEANIE.

My favorite bumper sticker "I hate Mean People". (I guess Hating Mean People isn't Mean???)

Anyone who has watched a thunder storm knows for a fact electricity comes out of the air!

[Mr. Man]

Proof you do not believe in Unicorns and Rainbows. Not even Leprechans or the Tooth Fairy. You must be a MEANIE.

My favorite bumper sticker "I hate Mean People". (I guess Hating Mean People isn't Mean???)



http://pulmyears.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blue-meanie-leader.jpg

Blue Meanies FTW:D

[LIGHTNIN1]

Here is your future ride. A supercharged model comes next year. Its called the BarackMobile.It comes with Obamas picture adorning the wheelcovers with a smile.

http://dvice.com/archives/2009/01/electric-egg-ca.php

[SC Cheesehead]

Proof you do not believe in Unicorns and Rainbows. Not even Leprechans or the Tooth Fairy. You must be a MEANIE.

My favorite bumper sticker "I hate Mean People". (I guess Hating Mean People isn't Mean???)

Anyone who has watched a thunder storm knows for a fact electricity comes out of the air!

No, I know the Tooth Fairy exists, I seen him....

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://pramonotunggul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tooth_fairy_lrg-15iavsg_42247.jpg&sa=X&ei=sJbJTcfEAszzsgbLj5HSAw&ved=0CAQQ8wc4Bw&usg=AFQjCNF-vDmbML8DPdbML-u9_DYt6Qrf_A

[CBT]

^^^^^ Problem with tariffs is, who's gonna end up paying the cost of them in the long run?

If American-made goods cost more that imported goods, and can't compete, and tariffs are placed on the imported goods to "level the playing field," you (the American consumer) end up paying a higher price for the goods. Don't think for a minute that those costs won't be passed along.

You want to level the playing field? Make US goods more competitive by lowering corporate tax rates and eliminating onerous government regulations that cost companies huge dollars for compliance but which add zero value to the goods produced.


Toyota
Nissan
Honda
BMW...

They all have plants here in the US and are producing cars, employing American workers, and paying US taxes, nothing novel about that idea, I think it's a great one... :up:

Hate to tell you but most get rediculous tax breaks, almost non-existant taxes, it's how they got them here in the first place. And it's not just with the auto industry. States will lure them in with a 10 or 15 year "no tax" bribe, then guess what happens around the time they have to start paying taxes? They move.

[rayjay]

http://dvice.com/pics/t10kuruma902.jpg

Can you see this POS trying to drive through a snow storm? :lol: Then the batteries die and leave you ten miles from nowhere to freeze to death. Great job B HO :help:

[Bluerauder]

Need to update the title of this thread ..... I just paid $4.539 for Shell 93 on the way home tonight.

Gas prices are dropping .... yeah right. :rolleyes:

[sailsmen]

Why has the Dollar been in decline?

One of my favorites, excerpts from "Press Briefing by Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency
December 8, 1993";

"CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities

very important to banks when it comes to ask regulators to approve mergers, new branches and the like.

make credit more readily available for small business, for small farms and distressed areas of our country.

dreams being achieved because of the access to more credit.

Passed it to ensure that banks and thrifts served the financial needs of their entire communities; and in particular economically empowered persons of low and moderate income.

It will channel billions of dollars a year in new credit into America's distressed communities

we turned to the people to ask what the people thought what the people needed. We walked through South Central Los Angeles, in a predominantly minority neighborhood in New York City to see with our own eyes and to listen with our own ears to what should be done. We talked with representatives of the Navajo Nation; to bankers, large and small banks, inclusive; to poor people in rural North Carolina and elsewhere.

And the simple three tests we will have under the new reform: a lending test, a service test, an investment test. Are you making loans? Are you providing services? Are you making investments? It's really, in the end, just that simple.

And the test is, one, are you serving low and moderate income geographies. In the same way, you have the same market share that you do in your service area generally.

So that when a bank creates its own business plan, one can evaluate it on the basis of its plan and the achievement under that plan

Well, we'll have the full panoply of all our enforcement armorarium, which includes cease and desist orders and civil money penalties in some cases. "

Ahhhh, Redistribution of Wealth, do you feel good paying for it?

[sailsmen]

Thanks for the laughs.

I cannot imagine going through life with out being able to do simple math and being totally unaware that you lack this skill.

[kernie]

Thanks for the laughs.

I cannot imagine going through life with out being able to do simple math and being totally unaware that you lack this skill.

Oh take a rest sailsmen, you have had a long hard day defending big oil.

:shake::shake:

[SC Cheesehead]

Oh take a rest sailsmen, you have had a long hard day defending big oil.

:shake::shake:

kernie,

This just in: STOCKHOLDERS own "Big Oil."

As has been stated in earlier posts, increasing taxes on oil companies will negatively impact the consumer, not some nebulous corporate entity.

If there's a villian here it's "big government" not "big oil."

[SC Cheesehead]

"Looks, folks. I’m not one for corporate welfare. But if we are going to have a discussion about lowering gas prices in this country, let’s have an honest discussion about it. Raising taxes on these oil companies isn’t going to give us lower gas prices and it sure as hell ain’t gonna pay to reduce our deficit." - Neal Boortz

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/may/10/lets-get-real-about-oil-companies/

[LIGHTNIN1]

kernie,

This just in: STOCKHOLDERS own "Big Oil."

As has been stated in earlier posts, increasing taxes on oil companies will negatively impact the consumer, not some nebulous corporate entity.

If there's a villian here it's "big government" not "big oil."

Big government got us here. If they would just let the free markets work, a little known entity called capitalism, things would not be perfect, but would be much better. The more they try to fix things the worse it gets. Case in point. Just look at their fixes for the dollar bill. They are trying to fix it and it reaches new lows every day.

[SC Cheesehead]

[/B]

Big government got us here. If they would just let the free markets work, a little known entity called capitalism, things would not be perfect, but would be much better. The more they try to fix things the worse it gets. Case in point. Just look at their fixes for the dollar bill. They are trying to fix it and it reaches new lows every day.

You betcha!

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations - In 1776, Adam Smith described the "invisible hand" that has been guiding successful free market economies for hundreds of years.

That "hand" will continue to do so right here in the US of A if "we the people" will just get the heck out of the way and let it function.

[sailsmen]

If the following is 100% Accurate our money is worth what???
budget deficit
fannie mae
Let me take you back to Christmas Eve, 2009. It was a time to wrap gifts for loved-ones. That's how the Obama Administration felt about the financial industry when it lifted all caps in emergency bailout money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That means the taxpayer was on the hook for all losses at these two mortgage giants no matter how large the losses.
The move caused a slight stir, but never got the attention of the American public because the announcement was timed to coincide with the peak season of distraction. And so it was forgotten...but not by Fannie and Freddie.
On eight maids a milking day, also known as New Year's Day, Fannie Mae took advantage of this generosity.
Effective Jan. 1, 2010, Fannie Mae brought an additional $2.4 trillion of its guaranty book of business on to the balance sheet under SFAS 166/167.
Therefore, Fannie Mae expects to reflect approximately 18 million loans on its books compared with approximately two million loans as of Dec. 31, 2009. Management estimates that the cumulative effect of adopting FAS 166/167 will boost its net worth by $2 billion to $4 billion in its first-quarter 2010 results.
Stop! Hold the phone. What this statement indicates is that Fannie Mae, the largest mortgage company in the entire world, was holding eight times the amount of mortgages off-book than it had on-book.
Thus despite the fact that it is losing tens of billions of dollars every quarter, and has borrowed $76.2 billion so far, it was actually hiding the vast majority of its worst performing mortgages off-book. The only reason you move assets off-book is if they are illiquid. And that's not even taking into account Freddie Mac, which has borrowed another $50 Billion from the taxpayers so far.
How bad are those assets? It's hard to say for certain, but after moving $2.4 Trillion dollars worth of assets, the net worth of Fannie Mae only improved by $2 Billion, or 0.083% of the assets.
Just how much is the taxpayer is on the hook for? Well, the former caps were limited to $200 Billion a piece, which the Treasury decided just wasn't enough. So if the losses are north of $400 Billion then we are entering the range of TARP bailout, but with almost none of the press coverage. Or to put it another way:
"The taxpayer bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will almost certainly be the most expensive of the financial crisis,"...
There has been at least one attempt at estimating the losses.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Fannie and Freddie added $291 billion to the federal deficit in 2009 and will cost an additional $389 billion to run over the next ten years. However, Fannie and Freddie are currently considered “off budget” meaning the actual cost to run these agencies is not considered by the Office of Management and Budget.
This article contains two nuggets of information. First of all, we are looking at around $600 Billion in taxpayer bailout, assuming the market doesn't take another sharp downturn. That's nothing to sneeze at, and it certainly deserves a lot more press coverage than it has gotten.
The second nugget is that all these losses are consider off-budget. So what we are talking about is moving hundreds of billions of dollars of bad assets from off-budget Fannie Mae to off-budget Treasury Department.
This accounting gimmick has disturbing parallels to another contemporary crisis.
"It is the same sort of financial shell game that has brought governments like Greece to a crisis point. Hiding your debts just leads to a bigger day of financial reckoning down the road," said Representative Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the panel.
Bachus may be a Republican, and supported fighting two wars off-budget, but in this case he is 100% correct. Hiding debts off-budget is exactly what broke the Greek government.
The Republicans are pushing to have the money put on-budget, which would, of course, immediately blow out the federal borrowing limits. After weeks of pressing by the Republicans, the Obama Administration has finally agreed to consider it.
A carefully designed disasterThe collapse of Fannie and Freddie didn't start recently, and didn't happen by accident. It was a calculated decision by the Bush Administration to try and extend and pretend the housing crisis into the next administration. It all started in March 2008.
By reducing the extra cushion of capital the two companies have been required to hold since 2004, the regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, is enabling the companies to invest $200 billion more in home loans. In essence, the companies are being allowed to take billions of dollars that had been used as a reserve against possible further losses and invest that money now in the housing market.
But critics said that if the housing market continued to decline, the move could put the two companies on a less sure footing and ultimately require a huge taxpayer bailout.
"I think it’s very dangerous and it’s a sign that people are very frightened," said Thomas H. Stanton, an expert on the two companies who teaches a course on credit risk at Johns Hopkins University. "At a time in which finance companies are holding questionable assets and facing losses, regulators typically require more capital, not less."

[sailsmen]

On top of that, the size of the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to buy was increased, from $417,000 to $729,750. This change happened in the face of collapsing asset prices.
Homes worth nearly 3/4 of a million dollars are not part of the original reasons why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created, nor should they be. People that can afford homes of that price do not need public subsidies, nor should they get it.
Now, thanks to Congress, junk bond investors will be able to pawn off their bad debt to Fannie and Freddie, instead of suing the big investment houses for ripping them off. This shift will certainly doom Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so don't be surprised if we, the taxpayers, have to bail out poor Fannie and Freddie - to the tune of more than $1 trillion.
It was a risky gamble, and it failed. Spectacularly.
The balance sheet of Fannie and Freddie that was cut 6 months earlier was now in danger of collapse.
It seems that the thin layer of cash reserves left over after the Bush Administration cut it 6 months earlier, wasn't enough to cover their massive losses. Yet the financial media failed to note that the Bush Administration was partly responsible for this enormous calamity.
But the Bush Administration was going to make it right now. They were going to backstop Fannie and Freddie and calm investors...at least that was the plan.
The powers Paulson won from Congress last month enabling a government rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- authority he likened to a weapon whose mere existence made it unlikely it would have to be fired -- may end up making a bailout more likely, say analysts and investors.
They say the threat of government action is creating uncertainty that is raising the companies' borrowing costs and increasing the odds Fannie and Freddie will need taxpayer funding.
The problem with the bailout plan is that Paulson is the implied threat of a de facto nationalization of the two mortgage giants. This would leave existing shareholders with pennies on the dollar.
Thus the bailout plan that Bush and Paulson assured us that they would never have to do, caused stock prices of Fannie and Freddie to crater. This reduced their capital reserves even further, increasing the chances of a taxpayer bailout.
On the other side of the ledger, the Bush Administration also changed the rules in April 2008 to get the FHA more involved in the mortgage industry.
“The government was using the Federal Home Loan Banks as a way to bail out the banking system early on.”
- James Bianco
One forgotten scandal was from late September 2008, the FHLB of Atlanta loaned Countrywide Financial $51 Billion in exchange for questionable mortgages as collateral.
Countrywide went under shortly afterward.
The decision to increase the FHA's exposure to a collapsing housing market is now meeting its limits.
The share of borrowers who are falling seriously behind on loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration jumped by more than a third in the past year, foreshadowing a crush of foreclosures that could further buffet an agency vital to the housing market's recovery.
About 9.1 percent of FHA borrowers had missed at least three payments as of December, up from 6.5 percent a year ago, the agency's figures show.
If the trend continues and the FHA's cash reserves are exhausted, the federal government would automatically use taxpayer money to cover the losses -- a first for the agency, which has always used the fees it charges borrowers to pay for its losses.
...
Adding to the trouble was a now-defunct FHA program that enabled sellers to cover the down payments of buyers. This meant many borrowers had no skin in the game and were more likely to walk away at early signs of trouble. The program resulted in excessive defaults before it was ended in late 2008, and it is projected to cost FHA an additional $10.5 billion in losses, Stevens said.
The program in question was another Bush Administration idea to bail out the housing industry to the benefit of Wall Street.
Meet the New BossAfter inheriting this disastrous legacy from the Bush Administration, you could only assume that the Obama Administration would do things drastically different, right?
Fannie Mae will drop some credit-score requirements, reduce income-documentation standards and waive the need for appraisals in some cases, according to a notice yesterday to lenders posted on the Washington-based company’s Web site. The changes apply to loans that the company owns or guarantees.
Let me translate for you. "Drop credit-score requirements" = subprime. "Reduce income-documentation standards" = Liar Loans.
And it just keeps getting better. The Obama Administration plans to subsidize at-risk borrowers. Has anyone bothered to ask "How long"? Meanwhile the Fed is buying up all those subprime, liar-loans that Fannie and Freddie are pumping out.
On top of it, the next part of Obama's plan had a ring of familiarity to it.
The loan-to-value (LTV) limit on mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to refinance as part of Obama’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan may go higher than the original 105 percent, according to National Mortgage News.
Bush's disastrous legacy was to at first ignore the bubble, then to try to keep it inflated until he was out of office by using Fannie and Freddie.
Obama's plan is to use taxpayer money to subsidize subprime, liar-loans at more than 105% of the home's value with Fannie and Freddie as a conduit. Thus attempting to recreate all the properties of the bubble that got us into trouble in the first place.
Seriously. Is this the best that Washington can do? Is our leadership really this bankrupt of ideas?
One other item to note is that when the Obama Administration lifted all bailout caps, they also promised that plans on reforming Fannie and Freddie would be drawn up by February. Last week, that promise was broken.
The Obama administration will wait until 2011 to propose an overhaul of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said yesterday, arguing that he wanted to put some distance between a new system and what he called “the worst housing crisis in generations.’’...
“We can’t do everything right away,’’ he said.
We don't expect you to do "everything" Timmy. We only expect you to do your job, which includes coming up with plans to reform these companies within the 13 months that you previously promised.
Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie continue to be traded on the stock exchange, hand out dividends to stock holders (while asking for taxpayer bailouts), and pay their CEOs as much as $6 million a year.

[sailsmen]

Per CNNMOney
Feds Committed and Spent;
Total $11 trillion $3 trillion

$11 trillion is ~$31K per person! Hows it feel carrying that burden? Per Income Tax Payer ~$92K, yeah love it!