State of the Union Speech Didn't Include This
 

I read this today and find it baffling and upsetting if true:
It's no surprise that Obama had many rich financial supporters of questionable motives during his campaign, but is this recent approval of billions of taxpayers money for the benefit of George Soros true?

the two sources you listed are Glen Beck and the WSJ.......all of my red flags are at full alert right now

Glen beck is insane, but what's wrong with the WSJ?

I wouldn't say anything is "wrong" with it, per se, but they definitely skew very conservative, especially in their editorial section

Grain of salt anyone?

Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims | FactCheck.org

Here is another source:

Latin American Herald Tribune - U.S. Government to Loan Brazil's Petrobras $10 Billion

Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company to benefit China and George Soros?

A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.
Ooops...Baraka beat me to it

Just another example of misrepresentation of the facts emanating from a viral e-mail and further circulated by those with an agenda.

There are several things wrong with that initial description, including several things that are not mentioned in the WSJ article itself.

- The Brazilian state is the biggest stock holder in Petrobras, with 50.01% of shares. PETROS, the company's pension fund, is the second largest stock holder. And it's not Soros who owns stocks, but his hedge fund firm. In that sense it is not unlike other hedge funds. On top of that, read this. So this is nothing more than a made up fantasy of the whole "new world order" conspiracy theorists.

- Not all offshore drilling is the same. The biggest thing that the WSJ and the blurb at the start don't mention is that the US already has several offshore drilling platforms. In fact, the US has more offshore platforms in the gulf of Mexico than Brazil has in all its coastline. What Obama has not supported is offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf. The Brazilian state, just like the American state, has restrictions on where companies can and cannot drill.

- It's a loan, not a gift.

I do not recall reading any posts defending Beck on this forum. If not for the liberal talking heads I listen to occasionally, I would never know what Beck says. I don't take him serious.

...then check these out:

I just don't like Beck, I think if he just toned it down a bit he could be o.k. The underlying issues are very real and should be taken seriously, just like I take serious the tar-sands in Canada and the US. Beck aside, I think these issues and the empty rhetoric coming from the WH shows that Obama is in over his head. I check the air-pressure in my vehicles religiously, and unless there are extreme variations in the pressure, MPG's don't deviate much, I doubt we would get the savings Obama suggested.

You can't loan money you don't have. Somebody please explain how it's supposed to help
Americans.

If you tire pressure is consistant, obviously your mpg's won't be affected. Most people don't check their tire pressure though.

And what does tire pressure have to do with the state of the union by the way?

For more clarification:

Ex-Im Bank :: Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development

Letters to the Editor: Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers - WSJ.com

This says it all.

In a word...flat.

Why would we loan a "measly" 2 billion to the already super-rich oil company, Petrobas in Brazil? (see youtubes above)

Read what I just posted above. American taxpayers didn't loan the money; the Export-Import Bank did. Petrobas may have money, but the loan of $2 billion ensures that a) they will actually go through with the project, and b) they will import American goods and services to do so.

I alter the pressures for different reasons and I monitor the effects. Don't ask, I already know I am weird. My dream job would be, if I could write, at Car and Driver/Consumer Reports/ Etc. or some other magazine were I could test cars/tires/etc., all day.

I watched the video clip above. It highlighted Obama talking about air pressure as a reason for not needing to drill for oil off-shore.

Every company in the world, even the biggest one, generally borrows money to expand it's business.

What is the issue here, exactly? The bank is making a profit through the loans, lending money that does not come from tax payers, and in the process helping the US export more.

And even if this decision was made by Obama (which it wasn't), and even if the stocks belonged to Soros personally, and not his hedge fund (which they dont) the notion that it was done to benefit Soros is nonsense. Whatever benefit Petrobras gets from this loan will be long term and diluted among its many, many stockholders (and Soros is very, very far from being a major stockholder in the company).

I would think the "buy American" types would be over the moon about this deal.

Here's this thread:


"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"I don't trust the source."

"In fact, here's the actual facts of the case, which indicate that this 'bad thing' isn't really happening, and what is happening isn't a bad thing."

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"Um. Dude. Facts."

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"Facts? Hello?"

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"I'm an obsessive fiddler-with of automotive minutia. Obama's vague and negative."

"Ooh! A bad thing...."

In a project of this magnitude it's unheard for a corporation to go forward without outside funding.

It may surprise you to learn that with very few exceptions even the largest companies in the world operate under a debt load. It's the way business works.

Petrobras isn't taking a loan just for kicks. They lack the available liquid assets to make this happen. They were going to have to take outside funds to make this happen. Would you rather they'd gone to the Chinese instead, maybe?

And this is discounting all the above reasons why this isn't anything to get worked up over.

Whole thread is a non-starter.

I don't know about this, it is the first time I have heard of it. But I would assume it goes something like this.

Brazil finds oil (or thinks there might be oil)
China needs oil
China is willing to pay big money for the oil
Brazil and China do not have the new oil drilling equipment
USA companies do have this equipment
USA owes China a lot of money
Brazil wants to be able to sell this oil
Brazil does not have the money to build new oil platforms (or there are unused ones)
USA loans Brazil a few billion in order to have them hire Americans and use USA equipment.
Brazil sells China the oil
USA gets paid back, and a third party country benefits from us reducing the trade deficit with China.

Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires. What is not funny is other nations addressing their needs in-part with off-shore drilling, while we pretend it is not a viable option off of our shores. If your assessment above is all you get from this, I can see how funny it is to you.

The US has over 3000 offshore oil platforms already, so the whole "we pretend it is not a viable option off our shores" thing is false. The US, like Brazil, has restrictions on where people can drill.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2753162]Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires.

Ace, come on man, you know you don't beleive that.

And putting the correct amount of pressure in your tires will improve you mpg.

You should never let facts get in the way of ignorance.

I don't get liberal arguments. If I listen to Obama he does not support off-shore drilling around our shores. If I listen to you Obama's position is false. Which is it? I agree that reasonable people would simply look at off-shore drilling on a case by case basis, but liberals often make blanket statements against it. Now you pretend there is no basis for confusion???

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

[quote=rahl;2753173]There is no doubt that Obama has not clearly articulated a specific and detailed energy policy. Suggesting that things like windmills, windows, air-pressure, are the answers is a bit dishonest.

When you use the word "correct" in this context, understand there are trade-offs. The pressure to maximize MPG is often different than recommended pressures. Traction, tire life, handling, heat build up, ride comfort, water displacement are some of the other factors.

Hey, I got an idea, if the average American lost 25 pounds that would increase MPG's and perhaps that will help eliminate our need to drill for oil off-shore too.

The third option you haven't considered is: you're not listening at all.

Whatever confusion is there is in your own head. The debate over off shore drilling is entirely about offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf, not all oil drilling. Again, there are over 3000 off shore oil platforms in the US already.

Oh, and the bans on drilling on the outer continental shelf were implemented in 82, 90 and 2006, so they are hardly a "liberal" cause.

I am going to mirror you.

The fourth option you haven't considered is: you're not listening at all.

Does that help the exchange?

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Ding, ding , ding, let's give you a prize. When I say I don't understand expressed or implied, I actually mean it.

Please, listen to Obama on the video above, is that what he said.

I am in 2010, many of the conservatives I interact with today favor increased off-shore drilling where it make sense, the opposition is liberal.

Considering the debate has always been over off shore drilling in the outer continental shelf, you can safely assume that any references made by offshore drilling at this point are referring to the outer continental shelf.

I wish we could stop being so cryptic here. Given, what I know and given what I have read here, the posts do not make any sense. I am not sure what point you are making, here. Obama is against off-shore drilling and Bush was severely criticized by liberals for wanting to do that, so was McCain. Am I wrong?

Obama blocks offshore drilling - Washington Times

Again, there are over 3000 oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

I don't know how you can call it an exchange. You're committed to a certain black and white perspective, and you're playing dumb about anything that adds nuance to the discussion. There's no exchange happening here.

Do you support using oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to drill for oil? Does Obama?

---------- Post added at 01:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------


How long have you had the ability to determine what I am committed to? How would you know? Are you suggesting my posts are dishonest? Are you suggesting my questions are not legitimate? When I say that I don't understand something, are you suggesting that I really do? When I point out what appears to be conflicting information are you suggesting that I just make it up for some reason? Or, is it that I am just not listening?

Considering neither he nor anyone in his administration has ever mentioned anything about shutting them down, I'd say they are not going to do anything to stop them, so the issue is settled.

It's getting as painful to read this forum as it is to participate in it. There's enough attitude from the participants that have a point that the opposition has to painfully ignore to not have 20 tfp rules and yellow cards thrown in face for what would be deserving response in the real world..... but to have to put up with the handful of resident ankle-biters that consistently have nothing to add but commentary whose sole purpose is to belittle other people is just too much. Not even fun to read. It's just freakin obnoxious.

For those who might be tempted to insinuate I'm playing a victim, I'm not really invested enough to consider myself one - so please don't waste your time. Sometimes I just can't help myself from adding my own commentary.

So in your opinion we should be seriously discussing some facts that have been proven false again and again? Showing that the "facts" presented in this thread are false is just "commentary" that adds nothing?

Do you support expanding the use of oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to drill for oil? Does Obama?