TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama Underwrites Off-Shore Drilling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Underwrites Off-Shore Drilling - Page 2

post #31 of 51
8/21/09 at 12:31pm
meaning: out ouf all his investments, Petrobras is the largest. It doesn't mean he owns Petrobras!
Petrobras is a much bigger company than that Cindy...
Reply
post #32 of 51
8/21/09 at 12:38pm
Thread Starter 
So, I guess George Soros won't make a dime out of the deal, is that what you are saying?
Reply
post #33 of 51
8/21/09 at 12:42pm
Thread Starter 
And why didn't the Import-Export Bank loan money to an American company
for energy production? Oh, because Barack turned them down.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/2...an-guarantees/

Quote:
Bethesda-based USEC on Tuesday accused President Obama of reneging on a campaign pledge after the Energy Department turned down the company’s request for $2 billion in loan guarantees for a new uranium enrichment project in Piketon, Ohio.
USEC, which operates the nation’s only uranium enrichment facility, said it would “demobilize” the new project, which it said could not obtain private financing without the federal loan guarantee. The company has already spent $1.5 billion on what it calls the American Centrifuge Plant, but USEC says the final price tag could reach $3.5 billion, 1 1/2 times as much as it estimated two years ago.
“We are shocked and disappointed by DOE’s decision,” USEC chief executive John K. Welch said in a statement. “President Obama promised to support the loan guarantee for the American Centrifuge Plant while he campaigned in Ohio. We are disappointed that campaign commitment has not been met.”
Another campaign promise broken, what a surprise.
Reply
post #34 of 51
8/21/09 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So, I guess George Soros won't make a dime out of the deal, is that what you are saying?
Funny this whole thread you were saying he owned Petrobras, and that he was the biggest stock holder... You made your whole case based on that - now that you are SO wrong, you still want to make a case?
Cindy, - he has the right to do whatever he wants to do with his money - it is NOT about him... It is much bigger than him... You are giving this guy too much credit. He is not the only investor... I am pretty sure some Bush boys have investments in it as well - why? Because it has been one of the best companies to invest in latest years.
Do you know how much investment is expected on Petrobras for the next 4 years? $174 Billion - a tiny little bit more than the $2billion the bank is landing PETROBRAS.
Did you also know that Soros sold over 1/2 of his Petrobras stocks in the end of May? If this thing had anything to do with him making $$$, I guarantee you he would hold on to those, wouldn't you think? These negotiations didn't happen from night to day.
Cindy - the bottom line, is that you guys are trying to make an issue where there is none.
Reply
post #35 of 51
8/21/09 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
And why didn't the Import-Export Bank loan money to an American company
for energy production? Oh, because Barack turned them down.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/2...an-guarantees/



Another campaign promise broken, what a surprise.
This is off-topic - or are we going to start an Obama bash fest here?
Furthermore: The bank is called Import-Export for a reason.
Reply
post #36 of 51
8/21/09 at 1:02pm
Ok - I am going for a nap.... Didn't sleep last night... TIIIIRRRREEEEDDDD!
Reply
post #37 of 51
8/21/09 at 1:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
Funny this whole thread you were saying he owned Petrobras, and that he was the biggest stock holder... You made your whole case based on that - now that you are SO wrong, you still want to make a case?

I never said he "owned Petrobras", just that he is a major stockholder. The more accurate statement is that Petrobras makes up the major part of Soros' investment funds, like 22%. 811 Million is NOT chump change.

Cindy, - he has the right to do whatever he wants to do with his money - it is NOT about him... It is much bigger than him... You are giving this guy too much credit.

You are missing the point again. You don't know much about George Soros do you?

He is not the only investor... I am pretty sure some Bush boys have investments in it as well - why? Because it has been one of the best companies to invest in latest years.

Oh, the old "Bush" spin again. *yawn*


Do you know how much investment is expected on Petrobras for the next 4 years? $174 Billion - a tiny little bit more than the $2billion the bank is landing PETROBRAS.

There is also a TEN Billion dollar figure floating around.
http://www.oilonline.com/home/digest/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=76704&cHash=6d3144f949
Quote:
The U.S. government is prepared to provide up to $10 billion in loans to finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil’s coast, a Brazilian official said Wednesday.



President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, discussed the matter with officials this week during a visit to the South American country, Brazilian Planning Minister Paulo Bernardo da Silva told reporters.

He said the U.S. Export-Import Bank already has signed a letter of intent in that regard with Brazilian state oil company Petrobras.


Did you also know that Soros sold over 1/2 of his Petrobras stocks in the end of May? If this thing had anything to do with him making $$$, I guarantee you he would hold on to those, wouldn't you think? These negotiations didn't happen from night to day.
Cindy - the bottom line, is that you guys are trying to make an issue where there is none.
The figures given were end of June figures, NOT May

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aFHPjfeUvtl8

Read the entire article, Mr George Soros seems to be making out quite well, financially, in this recession. It is, almost, like this recession has been a godsend to him. Coincidence?

There IS an issue here IMO, some just fail to see it
Reply
post #38 of 51
8/21/09 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Perhaps the WSJ should have checked out that story a bit more carefully before publishing it. This is from the Export-Import Bank:
Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development
Quote:
Charge: The U.S. government is giving away more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to Brazil’s largest oil and gas company to drill for oil in Brazil.

Fact: The Bank has approved a preliminary commitment to lend up to $2 billion to Petrobras for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company. Of note, the Bank is self-sustaining and no taxpayer dollars are involved.
Quote:
Charge: The loan to Petrobras represents a reversal of the Obama Administration’s policies on off-shore drilling.

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.
Fred P. Hochberg, the chairmain and president of the Export-Import Bank, responded to the piece in this letter to the editor
Quote:
Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.

We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress.
So, let's see if I understand this. A self-sustaining bank, which does not rely on tax dollars for anything, will loan a relatively small amount (in today's economy) to a company "...for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company."

Seems to me that's a private commercial deal, having nothing to do with government policy or spending -- and trying to spin it into the government of the day "going back on" its policies is merely a tactic for finding fault with that government when it was not even involved in the deal.

I don't usually comment on anything where there is an element of US government involved -- real or imagined -- but I have to read all this stuff and the ongoing attempt to make this a huge faux pas on Obama's part is making my head spin. Seems to me the above material debunked the myth, and there's a certain amount of willful obtuseness going on here.
Reply
post #39 of 51
8/21/09 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapunzel47 View Post
So, let's see if I understand this. A self-sustaining bank, which does not rely on tax dollars for anything, will loan a relatively small amount (in today's economy) to a company "...for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company."

Seems to me that's a private commercial deal, having nothing to do with government policy or spending -- and trying to spin it into the government of the day "going back on" its policies is merely a tactic for finding fault with that government when it was not even involved in the deal.

I don't usually comment on anything where there is an element of US government involved -- real or imagined -- but I have to read all this stuff and the ongoing attempt to make this a huge faux pas on Obama's part is making my head spin. Seems to me the above material debunked the myth, and there's a certain amount of willful obtuseness going on here.
Thank you - you take over debating this issue now... no matter what we say, we will never win... facts no longer seem to matter here... So... I am out of here... my nap is more important and certainly more productive than this thread...
Reply
post #40 of 51
8/21/09 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
Thank you - you take over debating this issue now... no matter what we say, we will never win... facts no longer seem to matter here... So... I am out of here... my nap is more important and certainly more productive than this thread...
No, sorry, I'm not here to debate it. I just needed to sort out the wheat from the chaff, as much for my own sanity as anything.
Reply
post #41 of 51
8/21/09 at 2:42pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapunzel47 View Post
So, let's see if I understand this. A self-sustaining bank, which does not rely on tax dollars for anything, will loan a relatively small amount (in today's economy) to a company "...for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company."

Seems to me that's a private commercial deal, having nothing to do with government policy or spending -- and trying to spin it into the government of the day "going back on" its policies is merely a tactic for finding fault with that government when it was not even involved in the deal.

I don't usually comment on anything where there is an element of US government involved -- real or imagined -- but I have to read all this stuff and the ongoing attempt to make this a huge faux pas on Obama's part is making my head spin. Seems to me the above material debunked the myth, and there's a certain amount of willful obtuseness going on here.


Not true, the bank does get government money. As in TAXPAYER.

And I could care less if THIS country was allowed to drill.

Why is it so hard for people to understand the this bank is funded by the government, which is the taxpayers?

I have posted several links in this thread, I guess they just weren't good enough.
Reply
post #42 of 51
8/21/09 at 3:08pm
My added bold:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapunzel47 View Post
Seems to me the above material debunked the myth, and there's a certain amount of willful obtuseness going on here.
Really? Ya think?
Reply
post #43 of 51
8/21/09 at 5:28pm
Thread Starter 
Forgive my, "obtuseness" but the only material quoted except for mine was Tricia's and I fail to see how her link debunked anything.
Reply
post #44 of 51
8/21/09 at 5:54pm
Thread Starter 
Is the Cato Institute a reliable source?

http://www.freetrade.org/node/69

Quote:
The Ex-Im Bank is a Great Depression-era agency that has little relevance in an era of increasingly open and sophisticated global markets. Subsidized export credit does not noticeably affect the overall level of trade, does not "improve" the U.S. trade balance, and has no discernable net impact on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy.

The Bank provides financing to countries that do not have trouble obtaining credit and, in many cases, merely displaces private investment by funding ventures that would otherwise have taken place. Moreover, the vast bulk of the Bank's financing goes to very large corporations that do not need handouts from taxpayers.
Those corporations include Petrobras, Halliburton, Enron, General Electric, General Motors, all Fortune 500 companies. No help for the little dude.

http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm

Quote:
One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.

You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Ex-Im welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Ex-Im handouts.
Reply
post #45 of 51
8/22/09 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Is the Cato Institute a reliable source?

http://www.freetrade.org/node/69



Those corporations include Petrobras, Halliburton, Enron, General Electric, General Motors, all Fortune 500 companies. No help for the little dude.

http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm
My husband is an expert in international trade, with an MBA in international business, as well as CGBP (Certified Global Business Professional). He has used the Ex-Im Bank in his career.

One thing that immediately comes to his mind is that the Ex-Im bank performs a valuable service for exporters, and that is that it will guarantee payment up to 90% on foreign receivables. Fear of not being paid is the single greatest reason more companies don't export. The key to increased wealth of the US is to increase our exports and decrease our imports. Unfortunately we always operate in a trade deficit, meaning we import (primarily from China-goods and the Middle East/South America - oil) more than we export. The exportation of oil and the fact that their exports exceeds their imports is why the Middle Eastern countries are so rich.

Secondly, to suggest that the Ex-Im Bank provides "hand-outs" is a fallacy. They finance export transactions for the length of the transaction. The value-added is the guarantee that the exporter will be paid. All countries have their equivalent of the Ex-Im Bank.

The last link you referenced above must be very old, because I recognized right off that at least two of the companies listed are no longer in business - ENRON (defunct since 2001) and LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES (defunct since 2006). That destroys the credibility of this link all by itself.

http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm

Background on Ex-Im Bank:
-The Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (Ex-Im Bank) mission is to help create and sustain jobs for American workers. The Bank does this at no cost to the American taxpayer; in the past sixteen years the Bank has netted the American people $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports have supported.
-More than 80% of Bank authorizations during the last fiscal year directly benefited small businesses.
Reply
post #46 of 51
8/22/09 at 1:22pm
Thread Starter 
Which small businesses? Because all I have seen were Fortune 550 businesses. And yes, that one link was old.

If no taxpayer money is uses and The Ex-Im is financed by our government, where is the money coming from?
Reply
post #47 of 51
8/22/09 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Which small businesses? Because all I have seen were Fortune 550 businesses. And yes, that one link was old.

If no taxpayer money is uses and The Ex-Im is financed by our government, where is the money coming from?
They are a bank just like any other bank, only they provide specialized services that most banks are unwilling to do, and they charge fees for their services. They are profitable, therefore they make money, and haven't lost it like WaMu, and other bad examples.

Small business that you've never heard of because they are small and localized. My husband has consulted for many small businesses, training them to export, and utiliing Ex-Im Bank's services. In our area the primary exports are agricultural products, so many local farms export stone fruit - peaches, nectarines, plums - and tree nuts like almonds, pistachios and walnuts. These would be small privately owned farms and ranches that you've probably never heard of like Wynona Ranch, Harris Bros. Almonds, etc.

You might want to read Wiki's description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-..._United_States
Reply
post #48 of 51
8/22/09 at 2:36pm
Thread Starter 
Are all banks funded by Congress and do all banks have to have their funding renewed periodically?
Reply
post #49 of 51
8/22/09 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Are all banks funded by Congress and do all banks have to have their funding renewed periodically?
I'm not an expert, and I'm not researching it at the moment, so off the top of my head, all banks operate under a federal/state charter. Every so often they need to show that they have sufficient funds, reserves, etc. that they can continue to operate and are solvent.

The Federal Reserve Bank is responsible for determining how much money needs to be coined and printed at the US Mints. Money is then loaned by the Federal Reserve Bank to various banks at prime rate, set by Ben Bernanke & company. Money received by the various banks is then loaned to businesses and individuals at a rate of prime plus % with % being what that bank feels is competetive and fair based on risk. The amount will vary from person to person and bank to bank, taking into account the person's/company's credit rating and payment history.
Reply
post #50 of 51
8/22/09 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 
So, you are saying the the Export-Import Bank Of America is just like any other bank in America? So all banks are government agencies?
Reply
post #51 of 51
8/22/09 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So, you are saying the the Export-Import Bank Of America is just like any other bank in America? So all banks are government agencies?
B of A and other banks must conform to state and federal regulations, but they are public corporations that sell stock on the stock exchangeand are not government agencies. They must conform to strict rules regarding reserves, etc. Ex-Im Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank are government agencies, not private or public corporations.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama Underwrites Off-Shore Drilling