US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

God, but you are clueless! Fracking allowed drillers to get oil out of the ground that was previously not cost effective to go after. So much oil and natural gas was being produced with this new technology that the Saudis were forced to cut the cost of their oil by huge amounts to try and undercut the price of US shale oil. It's the same thing they did forty years ago when we first started mining for shale oil.

 

[Oldstyle]

The North Dakota oil boom refers to the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3] Despite the Great Recession, the oil boom resulted in enough jobs to provide North Dakota with the lowest unemployment rate in the United States.[4][5] The boom has given the state of North Dakota, a state with a 2013 population of about 725,000, a billion-dollar budget surplus. North Dakota, which ranked 38th in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001, rose steadily with the Bakken boom, and now has per capita GDP 29% above the national average.[6]

I'm actually willing to go rather far out on that limb, Faun because it's looking rather sturdy!

LOL

You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.

Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did? Or are you still claiming that didn't happen in 2011?

It did not happen for any time, me boy. And the baken fields produced only about 25,000 jobs at most as a result of fracking. But I suppose you will try anything, eh. Problem is, in base numbers, it is WAY to small when you compare it with several million new jobs. Especially since much of the baken oil is so poor in quality that in order to get rid of it at refineries, the driller will have to pay the refinery to take it.

How many jobs are created when you drop the price of oil and natural gas that much, Georgie? How much disposable income do Americans have to spend on other things when they aren't paying $4 a gallon at the pump for gasoline? This isn't a "small" thing...you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

You can look the number up, me boy. But I hope you took a flashlight when yu pulled that Billions of dollars number out of your ass. So, is anyone surprised that you have no link, no proof? Of course not.
Are you forgetting the people and companies that got killed by the low prices. Notice how many oil rigs are sitting unused?
You see oil prices dropping as a result of the Baken Formation and Fracking. That, me boy, is technically called BULLSHIT. Because, me boy, that crude is way to small in total amound. Period.
Why has the price of oil been dropping? Why now
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html?_r=0
Read the articles and you will see the reasons. Several. None of them have to do with the Baken crude.
But nice try. I know you WANT people to believe you. But, me boy, you loose. Which is what losers do.

Small? Do you not know that the Bakken formation is estimated to have six BILLION barrels of oil in it? That's BILLION you babbling idiot! Do you purposely try and post stupid things?

 

[Oldstyle]

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

 

[Rshermr]

LOL

You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.

Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did? Or are you still claiming that didn't happen in 2011?

It did not happen for any time, me boy. And the baken fields produced only about 25,000 jobs at most as a result of fracking. But I suppose you will try anything, eh. Problem is, in base numbers, it is WAY to small when you compare it with several million new jobs. Especially since much of the baken oil is so poor in quality that in order to get rid of it at refineries, the driller will have to pay the refinery to take it.

How many jobs are created when you drop the price of oil and natural gas that much, Georgie? How much disposable income do Americans have to spend on other things when they aren't paying $4 a gallon at the pump for gasoline? This isn't a "small" thing...you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

You can look the number up, me boy. But I hope you took a flashlight when yu pulled that Billions of dollars number out of your ass. So, is anyone surprised that you have no link, no proof? Of course not.
Are you forgetting the people and companies that got killed by the low prices. Notice how many oil rigs are sitting unused?
You see oil prices dropping as a result of the Baken Formation and Fracking. That, me boy, is technically called BULLSHIT. Because, me boy, that crude is way to small in total amound. Period.
Why has the price of oil been dropping? Why now
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html?_r=0
Read the articles and you will see the reasons. Several. None of them have to do with the Baken crude.
But nice try. I know you WANT people to believe you. But, me boy, you loose. Which is what losers do.

Small? Do you not know that the Bakken formation is estimated to have six BILLION barrels of oil in it? That's BILLION you babbling idiot! Do you purposely try and post stupid things?

relatively, yes. Very very very Small. Estimating oil volume, particularly AVAILABLE oil volume, is highly dangerous. But while estimates of available oil in the Baken is up to 7.4 B Barrels, the world volume of available oil is over 1,000 B Barrels, or 1 trillion barrels. You see, me boy, why you are missing the point? Even in the US, the Baken is small in comparison with total available oil You actually need to spend a few minutes reading the information out there.
I have be en following this closely for the past 8 years, since a viral email from nut case cons went out saying that there was enough oil in the baken to support the US oil requirements for the next 35 years. A new BREATHLESS estimate that was BEFORE Fracking Technology was available.
Guys like you, being a con tool, are always making these wild claims. Here is a stat for you to take into account. The US has only 2% of the world oil available volume. Saying baken is controlling anything in oil production terms is stupid. Especially today, because, you see, oil produced by Fracking is EXPENSIVE. Oil produced in the Baken is typically of poor quality, costing too much to be economically viable. Which is why, me boy, oil drilling companies and people are leaving the Baken Formation in droves.
So, nice try at trying to excite the world on the Baken potential. But even the Alaskan reserves can not do what you suggest.
So, not sure if you are simply ignorant, or if it that you are simply lying.

 

[Rshermr]

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

Damn. A personal attack. Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle. I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value. I know you suggest I did. That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it. Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere. And shipping costs are high. Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high. And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine. And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star. It is not. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak. That would be just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3. Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before. It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.

 

[Rshermr]

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

God, but you are clueless! Fracking allowed drillers to get oil out of the ground that was previously not cost effective to go after. So much oil and natural gas was being produced with this new technology that the Saudis were forced to cut the cost of their oil by huge amounts to try and undercut the price of US shale oil. It's the same thing they did forty years ago when we first started mining for shale oil.

Right. The Saudi's and the oil cartel, who control over 50% of the world crude volume, are really worried about the Baken, with it's under 1%. The Saudi's simply reacted to a number of factors that caused oil stocks to rise, the baken was an insignificant factor.
If only you would spend a little time looking, you would find that the average cost of producing oil in the US is over $35. The cost of producing oil in Saudi Arabia is $9.9. So, they can allow us to pump to our hearts content, and they will make plenty of money.
In the past, we pumped oil from thousands of shallow pools in the US. Low cost production. As the oil got deeper, and the pools smaller, the cost rose. Fracking did not make oil production less expensive. It is MORE expensive than pumping the large, shallow pools so prevelent in the past. Which is why our cost of producing oil in this country is relatively HIGH, me boy. And why oil from fracking operations is particularly high. So, today, fracking makes it possible to obtain high cost oil, which is not viable when the prices for final product is low. Really a very simple thing, me boy. But the main thing is that Baken is controlling nothing in terms of world oil production, except in the little minds of cons.

 

[Rshermr]

Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did? Or are you still claiming that didn't happen in 2011?

It did not happen for any time, me boy. And the baken fields produced only about 25,000 jobs at most as a result of fracking. But I suppose you will try anything, eh. Problem is, in base numbers, it is WAY to small when you compare it with several million new jobs. Especially since much of the baken oil is so poor in quality that in order to get rid of it at refineries, the driller will have to pay the refinery to take it.

Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did?

not to mention that Democrats mostly opposed fracking! So Repubican policies mostly saved Obama fro a complete disaster. Always remember the golden rule from Econ 101: a recession is the time it takes the free market to correct for liberal interference.

Actually, me poorly informed con tool, the bigest push back to fracking are REPUBLICAN farmers and ranchers who want nothing to do with the possibility of ruining their water sources that fracking can and often does cause.

LOL

You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.

Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did? Or are you still claiming that didn't happen in 2011?

Gallup's 2016 environment survey, conducted March 2 through 6, found Americans have a clearer position on fracking than they did a year ago,. In 2015, 40 percent said they favored fracking and an equal amount said they opposed it. Another 19 percent said they had no opinion or knew little about it. In 2015, support for fracking slipped to 36 percent and opposition climbed to 51 percent.

The poll found the sharpest decline in support comes from Republicans, from 66 percent support in 2015 to 55 percent in 2016.
Poll: Opposition to fracking growing in the United States

The question wasn't what percentage of Americans favor fracking in a poll, Georgie...it was how much of the economic recovery was driven by fracking!

My point was that fracking had much more influence on jobs and the economy then any Obama Administration policy and if you subtracted either the jobs created or the economic growth created by fracking during those years then Barry's economic numbers would have been even more anemic then they were!

Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

 

[Oldstyle]

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

Damn. A personal attack. Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle. I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value. I know you suggest I did. That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it. Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere. And shipping costs are high. Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high. And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine. And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star. It is not. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak. That would be just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3. Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before. It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.

God but you're an idiot! In case you hadn't noticed...MOST oil reserves are found in the middle of nowhere! You think it's more expensive to ship crude from North Dakota than it is from any other remote area?

As for the importance of the Bakken oil field? Some estimates put the oil reserves there at a par with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Use your brain for once, Rshermr! If the Bakken oil field was insignificant then the Saudis wouldn't have slashed their oil prices as they have done!

 

[Oldstyle]

And fracking isn't something used to extract oil from "deep pools" you moron...it's a process to harvest oil trapped in rock formations.

 

[Oldstyle]

It did not happen for any time, me boy. And the baken fields produced only about 25,000 jobs at most as a result of fracking. But I suppose you will try anything, eh. Problem is, in base numbers, it is WAY to small when you compare it with several million new jobs. Especially since much of the baken oil is so poor in quality that in order to get rid of it at refineries, the driller will have to pay the refinery to take it.

not to mention that Democrats mostly opposed fracking! So Repubican policies mostly saved Obama fro a complete disaster. Always remember the golden rule from Econ 101: a recession is the time it takes the free market to correct for liberal interference.

Actually, me poorly informed con tool, the bigest push back to fracking are REPUBLICAN farmers and ranchers who want nothing to do with the possibility of ruining their water sources that fracking can and often does cause.

Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did? Or are you still claiming that didn't happen in 2011?

Gallup's 2016 environment survey, conducted March 2 through 6, found Americans have a clearer position on fracking than they did a year ago,. In 2015, 40 percent said they favored fracking and an equal amount said they opposed it. Another 19 percent said they had no opinion or knew little about it. In 2015, support for fracking slipped to 36 percent and opposition climbed to 51 percent.

The poll found the sharpest decline in support comes from Republicans, from 66 percent support in 2015 to 55 percent in 2016.
Poll: Opposition to fracking growing in the United States

The question wasn't what percentage of Americans favor fracking in a poll, Georgie...it was how much of the economic recovery was driven by fracking!

My point was that fracking had much more influence on jobs and the economy then any Obama Administration policy and if you subtracted either the jobs created or the economic growth created by fracking during those years then Barry's economic numbers would have been even more anemic then they were!

Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

 

[leftwinger]

I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?

 

[Rshermr]

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question: "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

Damn. A personal attack. Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle. I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value. I know you suggest I did. That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it. Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere. And shipping costs are high. Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high. And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine. And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star. It is not. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak. That would be just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3. Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before. It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.

God but you're an idiot! In case you hadn't noticed...MOST oil reserves are found in the middle of nowhere! You think it's more expensive to ship crude from North Dakota than it is from any other remote area?
Uh, that would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion, dipshit.
I know this is difficult for you to understand, but being in the miccle of nowhere is a big problem if you have no pipeline, like N. Dakota, dipshit. It is not in Saudi Arabia or the gulf nations, since they have a major infrastructure. Dipshit. Net is it costs a lot to ship from N. Dakota via TRUCK, in comparison to other countries VIA PIPELINE.

As for the importance of the Bakken oil field? Some estimates put the oil reserves there at a par with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Only bat shit crazy sources. I notice you did not provide a link, dipshit. Is that because you are ashamed of where you get your information??
Use your brain for once, Rshermr! If the Bakken oil field was insignificant then the Saudis wouldn't have slashed their oil prices as they have done!

Use your brain, me boy, if you can. Why do you think the Saudi's are concerned about a very, very, very small oil reserve that is under 1% of the size of theirs, and that costs over twice as much to produce the oil, and way more to ship it to refineries. jesus, you want to believe your own bullshit. Dipshit.

So, as opposed to the con tools, like oldstyle, ideas, what ACTUALLY has caused declining costs of oil and oil products:
Four things are now affecting the picture.
Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels.
Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk.
Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply.
Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4

So, while baken has been reducing oil production, overall oil production has increased

 

[Rshermr]

And fracking isn't something used to extract oil from "deep pools" you moron...it's a process to harvest oil trapped in rock formations.

I know that, dipshit. I did not say it was used to extact oil from deep pools. See how you lie. Extracting oil from pools, shallow and deep, has been going on for well over a CENTURY, dipshit. And,you moron, fracking does not "harvest" anything. It breaks substrate, and allows trapped oil to be EXTRACTED, Extracted, me boy. You harvest wheat, you extract oil. Really, imagine how much space you could save if you stopped the bullshit.

 

[Rshermr]

Actually, me poorly informed con tool, the bigest push back to fracking are REPUBLICAN farmers and ranchers who want nothing to do with the possibility of ruining their water sources that fracking can and often does cause.
Gallup's 2016 environment survey, conducted March 2 through 6, found Americans have a clearer position on fracking than they did a year ago,. In 2015, 40 percent said they favored fracking and an equal amount said they opposed it. Another 19 percent said they had no opinion or knew little about it. In 2015, support for fracking slipped to 36 percent and opposition climbed to 51 percent.

The poll found the sharpest decline in support comes from Republicans, from 66 percent support in 2015 to 55 percent in 2016.
Poll: Opposition to fracking growing in the United States

The question wasn't what percentage of Americans favor fracking in a poll, Georgie...it was how much of the economic recovery was driven by fracking!

My point was that fracking had much more influence on jobs and the economy then any Obama Administration policy and if you subtracted either the jobs created or the economic growth created by fracking during those years then Barry's economic numbers would have been even more anemic then they were!

Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.

 

[Rshermr]

The question wasn't what percentage of Americans favor fracking in a poll, Georgie...it was how much of the economic recovery was driven by fracking!

My point was that fracking had much more influence on jobs and the economy then any Obama Administration policy and if you subtracted either the jobs created or the economic growth created by fracking during those years then Barry's economic numbers would have been even more anemic then they were!

Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?

It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy. When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.

I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.

There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!

One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.

There have only been three times in US History when we lost very large numbers of jobs:
1. The Great Republican Depression of 1929 with a 26% unemployment rate.
2. The Reagan depression of 1982 with a 10.8% unemployment rate.
3. The Great Republican Recession of 2008 with a 10% unemployment rate.
No other time did the ue rate get to 10%. Did you happen to notice that all were under Republican Presidents??

 

[rdean]

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

He is definitely clueless....just another water carrier for the Barrypuppet.

And another......personal attack. Incapable of discussion??

Rshermr, you asked about the 8 things we could do that would return this country to greatness and I already posted it once to you but you conveniently ignored it. Every single one is doable but only if we develop a spine and wake up.


#1 Top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve and publicly name the 12 families that are the shareholders. Then we nationalize it, tell the banking oligarchs that the debt belongs to USA.INC which is being dissolved and not the debt of the people. Then we confiscate the ill-gotten wealth and put it into a trust AFTER dissolving USA.INC. We repatriate the golden that was confiscated and stolen from the people due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933. We will follow the paper trail and I suspect that the nation's gold is sitting in a vault in the Bank Of London. We then audit the IMF, the Bank For International Settlements and the World Bank and write off any and all debt this thieves have stolen from the third world countries.

#2 We then open up ALL Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the hidden holdings of USA.INC and it's 185,000 subsidiaries. What you would find is that they are sitting on 145 TRILLION dollars in assets not just in U.S holdings but overseas corporations as well that pays them a hefty dividend every year. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries take in more wealth in a year than the entire GDP of the private sector. That money is also put into a trust and that is what will finance the nineteen essential services that the IMF contracted for when USA.INC was taken into receivership when it went bankrupt AGAIN in 1950.

#3 Then we nullify all the unfair "fair trade agreements" that has allowed a flood of cheap goods into this country made by what is basically slave labor and we place tariffs on it like we did before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This would eliminate the need for any taxation whatsoever and Allodial rights to property could be restored to the people....which means they own it outright...no property tax whatsoever.

#4 There are over 6,000 patents for everything from zero point energy to a better way of creating GOOD food that has been suppressed under the guise of "National Security". We release them and allow a TRUE free market to run with them which would create MILLIONS of jobs without harming the environment at all.

#5 We bring every soldier back that has been working overseas protecting the interests of the multinational corporations and use them to secure our southern border. Only those that came here legally and signed the guest book should benefit from the changes...not those that came over here, flopped and sucked off of the public teat.


#6 We use our influence to bring about these changes in every other country that is under the thumb of the banking oligarchs and return the wealth and resources that were stolen from them by the IMF and Bank For International Settlements back to the people from which it was stolen. It would be a domino effect. Once we expose the thievery of the IMF, BIS and World Bank, we put that money into a world trust to rebuild the infrastructure of these third world counties.


#7 We put every globalist on trial for their crimes against humanity and confiscate their wealth. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers come immediately to mind, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrice, Prince Phillip, etc, etc. Everyone that sits on the Committee of 300. It's a very tiny group of powerful elites that have foisted this debt slavery system upon humanity at the expense of 100's of millions of lives and it's way past time that they paid for their crimes. It would be Nuremburg on steroids.


#8 We restore the Republic which means a return to Common Law which is the law of the land instead of admiralty law and the UCC which is the law of the sea with all it's acts, statutes and codes. Re-train the administrators that were acting on behalf of the bank under the guise of being a judge that was raising revenue for the corporation.... into administering Common law.

#9 Hire peace officers instead of police that have been nothing but glorified mall cops and enforcers of acts, statutes and codes that produced revenue while producing no real victim of violations of said acts, statutes and codes.

#10 Make the people the trustee of their corporate fiction that was created the day they were born with the birth certificate that was written on bond paper and monetized. This bond has gained value over the life of the corporate fiction and instead use it to fund the retirement of the real man or woman of the land...thus eliminating the need for any kind of social security tax on both the employee and the employer freeing the employer to pay more since he/she will not have to figure that cost into what he/she decides to pay you. Only under real time hardship cases like disability would the funds from this bond be released if it's not at the age of retirement......like the age of 60? Heck, we might even be able to lower it to 55.

#11. Legalize hemp....it has a 1000 and 1 uses from being a bio-fuel to curing many forms of cancer.

We have been abused, we have been raped, pillaged and plundered by a debt slavery system that rivals that of Rome before the birth of Christ and we don't even realize it.

BTW, there are millions of people that know the things I do...especially in Europe....America? Not so much but there are some. The tipping point is about to be reached and the point of no return is approaching unless people wake up as to what is being done to them. We ARE the change...we are the solution. These bought and paid for lackeys in D.C that is the corporate headquarters of USA.INC have no power...it's all theater. KNOWLEDGE is power and trust me, they do not want you to know what I have posted here. If you want change, you are not going to get it as long as the for profit corporate entity exists in D.C ...etch that in stone.

If you were posting a recipe for disaster, clearly, you have all the ingredients.

 

[Dale Smith]

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

He is definitely clueless....just another water carrier for the Barrypuppet.

And another......personal attack. Incapable of discussion??

Rshermr, you asked about the 8 things we could do that would return this country to greatness and I already posted it once to you but you conveniently ignored it. Every single one is doable but only if we develop a spine and wake up.


#1 Top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve and publicly name the 12 families that are the shareholders. Then we nationalize it, tell the banking oligarchs that the debt belongs to USA.INC which is being dissolved and not the debt of the people. Then we confiscate the ill-gotten wealth and put it into a trust AFTER dissolving USA.INC. We repatriate the golden that was confiscated and stolen from the people due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933. We will follow the paper trail and I suspect that the nation's gold is sitting in a vault in the Bank Of London. We then audit the IMF, the Bank For International Settlements and the World Bank and write off any and all debt this thieves have stolen from the third world countries.

#2 We then open up ALL Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the hidden holdings of USA.INC and it's 185,000 subsidiaries. What you would find is that they are sitting on 145 TRILLION dollars in assets not just in U.S holdings but overseas corporations as well that pays them a hefty dividend every year. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries take in more wealth in a year than the entire GDP of the private sector. That money is also put into a trust and that is what will finance the nineteen essential services that the IMF contracted for when USA.INC was taken into receivership when it went bankrupt AGAIN in 1950.

#3 Then we nullify all the unfair "fair trade agreements" that has allowed a flood of cheap goods into this country made by what is basically slave labor and we place tariffs on it like we did before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This would eliminate the need for any taxation whatsoever and Allodial rights to property could be restored to the people....which means they own it outright...no property tax whatsoever.

#4 There are over 6,000 patents for everything from zero point energy to a better way of creating GOOD food that has been suppressed under the guise of "National Security". We release them and allow a TRUE free market to run with them which would create MILLIONS of jobs without harming the environment at all.

#5 We bring every soldier back that has been working overseas protecting the interests of the multinational corporations and use them to secure our southern border. Only those that came here legally and signed the guest book should benefit from the changes...not those that came over here, flopped and sucked off of the public teat.


#6 We use our influence to bring about these changes in every other country that is under the thumb of the banking oligarchs and return the wealth and resources that were stolen from them by the IMF and Bank For International Settlements back to the people from which it was stolen. It would be a domino effect. Once we expose the thievery of the IMF, BIS and World Bank, we put that money into a world trust to rebuild the infrastructure of these third world counties.


#7 We put every globalist on trial for their crimes against humanity and confiscate their wealth. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers come immediately to mind, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrice, Prince Phillip, etc, etc. Everyone that sits on the Committee of 300. It's a very tiny group of powerful elites that have foisted this debt slavery system upon humanity at the expense of 100's of millions of lives and it's way past time that they paid for their crimes. It would be Nuremburg on steroids.


#8 We restore the Republic which means a return to Common Law which is the law of the land instead of admiralty law and the UCC which is the law of the sea with all it's acts, statutes and codes. Re-train the administrators that were acting on behalf of the bank under the guise of being a judge that was raising revenue for the corporation.... into administering Common law.

#9 Hire peace officers instead of police that have been nothing but glorified mall cops and enforcers of acts, statutes and codes that produced revenue while producing no real victim of violations of said acts, statutes and codes.

#10 Make the people the trustee of their corporate fiction that was created the day they were born with the birth certificate that was written on bond paper and monetized. This bond has gained value over the life of the corporate fiction and instead use it to fund the retirement of the real man or woman of the land...thus eliminating the need for any kind of social security tax on both the employee and the employer freeing the employer to pay more since he/she will not have to figure that cost into what he/she decides to pay you. Only under real time hardship cases like disability would the funds from this bond be released if it's not at the age of retirement......like the age of 60? Heck, we might even be able to lower it to 55.

#11. Legalize hemp....it has a 1000 and 1 uses from being a bio-fuel to curing many forms of cancer.

We have been abused, we have been raped, pillaged and plundered by a debt slavery system that rivals that of Rome before the birth of Christ and we don't even realize it.

BTW, there are millions of people that know the things I do...especially in Europe....America? Not so much but there are some. The tipping point is about to be reached and the point of no return is approaching unless people wake up as to what is being done to them. We ARE the change...we are the solution. These bought and paid for lackeys in D.C that is the corporate headquarters of USA.INC have no power...it's all theater. KNOWLEDGE is power and trust me, they do not want you to know what I have posted here. If you want change, you are not going to get it as long as the for profit corporate entity exists in D.C ...etch that in stone.

If you were posting a recipe for disaster, clearly, you have all the ingredients.

Really? You like this debt slavery system?

 

[Oldstyle]

North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of 37,733 employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of 37,733 jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

Damn. A personal attack. Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle. I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value. I know you suggest I did. That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it. Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere. And shipping costs are high. Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high. And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine. And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star. It is not. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak. That would be just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3. Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before. It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.

God but you're an idiot! In case you hadn't noticed...MOST oil reserves are found in the middle of nowhere! You think it's more expensive to ship crude from North Dakota than it is from any other remote area?
Uh, that would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion, dipshit.
I know this is difficult for you to understand, but being in the miccle of nowhere is a big problem if you have no pipeline, like N. Dakota, dipshit. It is not in Saudi Arabia or the gulf nations, since they have a major infrastructure. Dipshit. Net is it costs a lot to ship from N. Dakota via TRUCK, in comparison to other countries VIA PIPELINE.

As for the importance of the Bakken oil field? Some estimates put the oil reserves there at a par with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Only bat shit crazy sources. I notice you did not provide a link, dipshit. Is that because you are ashamed of where you get your information??
Use your brain for once, Rshermr! If the Bakken oil field was insignificant then the Saudis wouldn't have slashed their oil prices as they have done!

Use your brain, me boy, if you can. Why do you think the Saudi's are concerned about a very, very, very small oil reserve that is under 1% of the size of theirs, and that costs over twice as much to produce the oil, and way more to ship it to refineries. jesus, you want to believe your own bullshit. Dipshit.

So, as opposed to the con tools, like oldstyle, ideas, what ACTUALLY has caused declining costs of oil and oil products:
Four things are now affecting the picture.
Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels.
Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk.
Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply.
Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4

So, while baken has been reducing oil production, overall oil production has increased

You think the price of gasoline has gone from plus four dollars to sub two dollars because of "low demand"? God but your posts get stupider with each passing hour! We had weaker economic activity when the price was close to five dollars! If you DID get a degree in economics, Georgie...which I HIGHLY doubt...then you are probably the dumbest economics major to graduate from a college or university this century!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

all [periods of high unemployment] were under Republican Presidents??

and all under obvious Democratic policies!! Think before you post. Under Republican capitalism supply equals demand so everyone who wants a jobs has one.

 

[Rshermr]

That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away. Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there. Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long. Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs. The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years. The good pools are drained. What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge

You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!

Damn. A personal attack. Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle. I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value. I know you suggest I did. That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it. Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere. And shipping costs are high. Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high. And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine. And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star. It is not. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak. That would be just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3. Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before. It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.

God but you're an idiot! In case you hadn't noticed...MOST oil reserves are found in the middle of nowhere! You think it's more expensive to ship crude from North Dakota than it is from any other remote area?
Uh, that would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion, dipshit.
I know this is difficult for you to understand, but being in the miccle of nowhere is a big problem if you have no pipeline, like N. Dakota, dipshit. It is not in Saudi Arabia or the gulf nations, since they have a major infrastructure. Dipshit. Net is it costs a lot to ship from N. Dakota via TRUCK, in comparison to other countries VIA PIPELINE.

As for the importance of the Bakken oil field? Some estimates put the oil reserves there at a par with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Only bat shit crazy sources. I notice you did not provide a link, dipshit. Is that because you are ashamed of where you get your information??
Use your brain for once, Rshermr! If the Bakken oil field was insignificant then the Saudis wouldn't have slashed their oil prices as they have done!

Use your brain, me boy, if you can. Why do you think the Saudi's are concerned about a very, very, very small oil reserve that is under 1% of the size of theirs, and that costs over twice as much to produce the oil, and way more to ship it to refineries. jesus, you want to believe your own bullshit. Dipshit.

So, as opposed to the con tools, like oldstyle, ideas, what ACTUALLY has caused declining costs of oil and oil products:
Four things are now affecting the picture.
Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels.
Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk.
Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply.
Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4

So, while baken has been reducing oil production, overall oil production has increased

You think the price of gasoline has gone from plus four dollars to sub two dollars because of "low demand"? God but your posts get stupider with each passing hour! We had weaker economic activity when the price was close to five dollars! If you DID get a degree in economics, Georgie...which I HIGHLY doubt...then you are probably the dumbest economics major to graduate from a college or university this century!

So, lets see what you just said, me boy. You saidI said the price had dropped because of low demand. Now, me boy, you are either but stupid (possible) or lying. Because if you could read, I said there were 4 reasons. You picked one of 4. So, look again, me lying con. Second, you said I said that was the reason. It was 1. Not what I said as the only reason, but one of 4 reasons. And 2 it was not I that made that determination. The link took you to the article I quoted. It was by the Economist. Now, unless you are a complete fool (possible) you know they are an extremely credible and knowledgeable impartial source. So, there you go, me boy. Making things up again. I try to educate you, and you come back with unnecessary insults. Relative to my econ degree, you already stated that I did not have one, but lost that argument when you refused to take a simple bet, and if you were correct, make some money.
So, you say what I said was wrong. But by implication you said that the Economist was wrong. Sorry, me boy, you loose. If I have to believe someone, either you or the economist, you loose.
You should be embarrased. But that would require that you had some integrity, which you do not.
But it was a normal post for you. You loose your argument, then come back with personal attacks.