This is what is all about... screwing America again for the leftists in the world.
This should be good news for the Drill Here, Drill Now contingent, right? The Obama administration has committed $2 billion in loans to exploit offshore oil resources in hopes of extracting a major new source of petroleum.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas. …
But it still doesn’t allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won’t allow at home.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/18/g … -drilling/
So now we will give billions to our enemies south of the border also.
What a joke...
Maybe because we don't care if a lot of poor brown people get their coasts poisoned and their livelihoods destroyed, but when it happens to Americans, it's an international crisis.
As I have said before... it is always the racist who see race in every issue.
Is it just me or doesn't the OP say in one breath that the money will be a loan - and that Obama is somehow using this to screw America by sourcing oil somewhere other than the Gulf - during the worst oil spill on American shores in history.
I think the OP is one sandwich short of a picnic !
I guess the rest of the world should stop giving money to the US also. And stop allowing imports from the US.
Brazil is now an enemy? Seems you guys have a lot of enemies...
"I guess the rest of the world should stop giving money to the US also. And stop allowing imports from the US. "
The rest of the world is welcome to do so if they think it is in their best intereests.
Don't hold your breath.
Very bold rhetoric. Some would say that Canada relies on the US for its security. That Canada's socialized medicine is subsidized by American's and American Pharma.....
In reality the idea you mention, that it cut boths ways is true.
America should NOT offer assistance or subsidy to anyone. America, like a lot of the world right now, is broke. Like wise America should not be accepting assistance or subsidy from anyone.
America is one of few countries that can actually stand alone. She should start doing just that.
you rely on us for your hockey players and comedians!!
No counry can 'stand alone' if it is to have a thriving economy.
Thats the lie, that those with little substance and great ambition tell to those they whish to steal from. Trade and subsidy/foriegn policy are not the same thing. In fact your country not only benefits from being America's neighbor and ally. It even greatly benefits itself by minding it's own business.
Its kinda like a domestic abuser.....belittle and controll....
America has too long listened to it's "Allies" belittle her character. So long in fact we have elected an apologist.
My point was that foreign trade is essential and that no country can ‘go it alone’ econonically.
America's economic power and wealth has always been built on trade with the outside world... that is the accepted fact by everyone who has studied US history and / or economics.
Those nations which have shunned away from the world and have become isolationist are typically the ones most destitute and poverty stricken.
I agree with you 100%... my country does indeed benefit from trade.. and it's biggest trading partner is the US (and vice versa).
As for foreign policy, yes.. it is different than foreign trade, but the two are by nature intertwined to a great extent.
If you look at the economic warfare played in the last decades... yes we have alot of enemies. Ones who like to smile at us and act so kind and considerate... then when we have turned our back...
Stick, stick... stick.
We are bleeding out.
I don't think $2 billion is a lot of money and if we are to get the oil from Brazil, it would mean we would rely less on the Saudis. That's a plus for us.
It would be cheaper to buy our oil from Brazil than to extract it from our own shores. That's another plus.
Being a big customer of Brazil means that we have some influence when it comes to geopolitics. Another plus.
This is not unusual. This is how our government uses oil from developing countries to benefit us economically and politically. The number of oil-industry jobs in the US has been fewer and fewer with every passing year. It's not going to reverse itself.
That is my point.. and the problem.
Onward with the green agenda.
Who cares if it destroys America's future.
"This is not unusual. This is how our government uses oil from developing countries to benefit us economically and politically. The number of oil-industry jobs in the US has been fewer and fewer with every passing year. It's not going to reverse itself."
I would agree with all, except that it has benifited the US politically. The middle east is a prime example. What we see as capitalism they see as imperialism. In some cases they may be right.
Accusations of imperialism is a bunch of leftist crap that I'm not going to bother to pay attention to. You know it and I know it.
Don't confuse muslim anti-semites and their hatred for Israel overshadow the benefit of staying engaged in the Middle East. Things would be a lot more unstable if we didn't have some influence over the Saudis, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.
"Things would be a lot more unstable if we didn't have some influence over the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the UAE, etc"
Agreed....but should we? The greatest influence may have been modernizing their military. We may have set the stage for the next world war. Could you honestly describe Saudi culture as "cosomopolitan"?
Do I think any of this was done with ill intentions? No....That doesn't change the facts.
Getting oil from "developing" countries is a great for America economically. Politicaly it's a slipery slope. We have to be very carefull how we "Influence".
CJ, the last time we ignored the world big time, it bit us in the butt twice over. We ignored Europe and what was happening between Japan and China and we ended up with WW2. I agree with you that when we get involved it is not painless, look at all the crap we get into -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam. Even when we don't get involved, we are asked to do so -- first Gulf War and Kosovo. It's a real pain being the only superpower. There are times when I wished we could be Canada and be pointless, but we're not Canada and until somebody else becomes a superpower, (and if it's China we're all in trouble) or you want to let the Islamofascists take over, we're it so man up will ya!
The US did not ignore the issues between China and Japan, The US and England interfered, restrained and threatened. Japan idolized the US and England at the time. All they wanted was to be like us. We wouldn't give theme a seat at the table of power. It bred contempt and an anti-west culture. Sound familiar? Oh and guess what? It was about oil! As you know Japan took things too far and lashed out against the wrong country. Had we not interfered, Japan would have invaded China. I know today it sounds rediculous, but in the late 30's Japan was far superior to China, militarily speaking.
As far as Europe. Initially much of the US was facinated by Hitler. He was Time Magazines "Man of the Year". We didn't ignore them, we were mislead. By the time we figured that out. We were in a serious disadvantage militarily. We have been told that we brought WW1 and WW2 on ourselves by minding our own business. Of course if you say it just like that, it sounds counter intuitive. So we dress it up and call it "Isolationism".
Man up?LOL I've been on the wrong side of the ditch twice. No intentions of personally investing myself in that particular conundrum again. I would give my life for your freedom. What I won't do is clean up some politicians failed diplomacy.
As far as the islamofacist....we fund them! America(general public) does NOT have the stomach to do what must be done. Withdraw! Besides it's crazy(criminal IMO) to try and fight a guerrilla war via conventional means.
Japan DID invade China in the 30's - they took the whole eastern coast and across to Wuhan and beyond. It was the combined forces of the standing army AND the Red army that pushed them out, kinda during their own revolutionary war. The Japanese were responsible for many atrocities of which the 'rape' of Nanjing is the most well known - and this is why many Chinese say they 'hate' the Japanese.
Japan did not leave China because they were "pushed out" by Chinese forces, they left because they were losing WWII and could not sustain their holdings.
Yes, they did. They were very successfull. They were talked out of it, more than pushed out. Plus they lacked the logistics to continue. The point I was trying to make is that Japan was attempting to push back against the spread of communism. Something the US did for how long after the end of WW2? China fell to communism AFTER the failed invasion....
CJ I think your interpretation of things is a lot different than mine.
1. Yes the US did ignore that part of Asia, we were in the middle of the Depression and weren't paying attention to anything else because we were in trouble.
2. Japan felt threatened that all these Europeans were colonizing Asia and also felt that if there was anyone who was going to exploit the resources in Asia it should be someone Asian. They were not an admirer of the US or England. If anything they admired the Germans.
3. Japan invaded China, Manchuria to be precise. China was having some kind of Civil War and the attack by the Japanese took them by surprise.
4. That Hitler was Time's Man of the Year doesn't mean that we approved of him. It means that he was the thing that affected everyone on a global scale.
5. I don't thing we caused WW1 and WW2. Anyone who says so is ignorant of the facts and an America hater. The countries of Europe were still powerful with many colonies, our country's disengagement would not have prevented WW2 but in my opinion, it did make us unprepared and unable to affect the situation to our advantage and let the situation develop to the point that it engulfed us.
I thing we're better off being part of situations and having some control rather than letting the situation control us.
In your post you make a good sound reply with good reasoning and then ruin it all by putting in this nonsense. Nobody on here is an 'America hater' many of us are critical of America and many Americans agree with those criticisms. Hate is generally the province of the religious forums on here.
Having said that it is my opinion that you are correct in all that you say otherwise, my only comment would be that the US goes out of its way to get involved in any situation that it feels might be to its advantage when it would be better keeping out of it.
I said "I don't thing we caused WW1 and WW2. Anyone who says so is ignorant of the facts and an America hater." And I stand by it because to blame the US for those 2 world wars is stupid and illogical and therefore has an agenda and definitely an America hater. That you chose to take it out of context is something you should examine about yourself.
You clearly said 'american hater' not me - this is just the reverse side of the racist coin and I feel quite within my right to criticise you for it.
"Nobody on here is an 'America hater' "
The US is wise to spend money that will help America gain access to oil from locations which are not controlled by leaders with the last name of "Chavez" or "Suad"
I know that China is investing HUGE money in the Canadian tar sands in the anticipation that they will need even more oil in the future.
We have plenty of Oil and natural gas to invest in in America. I am tired of giving the world our jobs and money. I would rather buy from Americans... have them produce, refine and sell.
We don't have to give everything away to be good guys. It has got to stop... we are pissing and bleeding jobs all over... and we are going to create oil jobs in Brazil and not here.
it might be a good idea to keep and build upon the jobs you have, instead of gambling that you won't put thousands out of work and destroy entire industries as the result of drilling wells that can screw up and flood the country and seas with oil.
Ok so you dont want China to lend you any more credit your screwed !
Since when was Brazil an enemy? Further how much has been wasted in Iraq ? More like three trillion right? I rest my case !
Where does a country that is $13 Trillion in debt get $2 Billion to loan? $400 million to give away on the Gaza Strip? $30 Billion to hand out to the Global Warming Fraud at the UN... etc. etc.
All these "small" handouts... a few billion here, a few million there, and we get what in return? The bill.
Economically speaking it is....
Guess where all the now shut-down rigs from the Gulf will be going. I say most likely brazil... pretty funny. I wonder who is making the tons of money from this. I bet it all leads back to one lil circle that isn't to far from the pres and his crooked cronies
So Obama's move to help open up another site for all those unemployed rigs (and the industry that comes with them) is a good idea - right ?
I don't think economic systems have "enemies" or "allies". That's more of a political stance.
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
Think about it. The National Debt as a percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) under FDR went from 50% of GDP to 120% of GDP. Where did the money come from? We are currently financing the deficit by borrowing from China (mostly). The US didn't borrow the money it spent on WWII, unless you...
by MikeNV 7 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on the South Korea/North Korea Border.And the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES to...
by earnestshub 8 years ago
GM reckon that although they had a lousy year, the will be in profit this year and all the bailout money is to be paid back by June.There have been quite a few companies paying the bailout money back. Is this another positive indicator?
by IslandBites 2 years ago
Heavyweight foreign policy adviser Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton "brings truly unique experience and perspective to the...
by AnnCee 8 years ago
NEVER HAS THERE BEEN SO LITTLE DIVERSITY WITHIN AMERICA'S UPPER CRUST. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their...
by Reality Bytes 5 years ago
A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming cabinet.The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|