Before Citizens United, billionaires spent around $16 million on presidential elections. In 2024, they spent $2.6 BILLION.
And what did they get for that money? They got a MASSIVE tax cut for themselves.
Marco Rubio 2 days ago: “Imagine if Iran funded the well-being of its people, rather than its military”
Trump today: “We can’t fund daycare or Medicaid, we need more money for our military”
Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
I genuinely love this because it so eloquently makes the argument that--judged simply on the outcomes it produces and not its truth claims--the LDS Church stands leaps and bounds above the secular world and other religions.
Good thing the Church is also true....
The Pentagon has a $1T budget and failed 8 audits in a row.
Health insurance companies defraud taxpayers out of $80B a year.
The 1% steals $163B a year through tax evasion.
Companies steal $50B in wages per year from US workers.
Start there.
Absolute insanity. Since Citizens United outside spending in elections has skyrocketed by nearly 680 percent to 4.5 billion dollars. It is no wonder voters feel like politicians only work for big business and the super wealthy. The system is completely broken.
> Republican gets elected President.
> Cuts benefits for the poor.
> Cuts taxes for the rich.
> Starts a war in the Middle East.
It's crazy how it’s always the same thing every single time.
Trump’s Board of Peace isn’t a neutral international institution. Its charter names him chairman for life, lets him hand‑pick members, control finances, and even choose his own successor, concentrating effective power in his hands alone. Directing U.S. taxpayer money into that entity without a specific act of Congress appropriating the promised $10 billion would also trample the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which gives Congress—not the president—ultimate authority over when and how federal funds are spent, making this a massive challenge to the power of the purse.
@jkimballcook I agree that corporations should have protected free speech rights, but also think that money should not be considered speech. As it has been used, Citizens United has been terrible for the American citizens.
I JUST CRUNCHED THE NUMBERS ON TRUMP'S VENEZUELA OIL PLAN
And there's a huge problem.
Everyone's expecting Venezuela to pump 3M+ barrels per day and crash oil prices.
But here's what nobody's talking about:
The infrastructure is DEAD.
30 years of socialist mismanagement destroyed everything.
PDVSA (Venezuela's state oil company) went from world-class operator to complete disaster.
Refineries are rusting. Pipelines are leaking. Equipment is ancient.
The realistic cost to fix it? $100-180 BILLION over 10-15 years.
Nobody has that kind of money.
Especially not for a country that just stole billions from foreign investors.
The Exxon Problem:
Venezuela owes $60 billion in unpaid arbitration awards.
Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and others got their assets seized in 2007.
They won in international court. Venezuela never paid.
Now Trump's calling oil execs saying "invest in Venezuela."
Their response: "Show us rule of law first."
Translation: We're not putting billions into a country that might nationalize us again.
The Chevron Reality Check:
Chevron's the ONLY major still there.
They're operating under special US license.
Best case scenario with their current setup? Add 200-500k barrels per day.
That brings Venezuela from 900k bpd to maybe 1.1-1.5M bpd.
Still 50% below their historical peak.
And that's the OPTIMISTIC scenario.
The Orinoco Problem:
Venezuela's oil is heavy crude from the Orinoco Belt.
It's thick, sulfurous, expensive to extract.
Needs special refineries to process.
At current oil prices, the margins are horrible.
Why would any company invest billions for 8-12% returns when they can get 15-20% in US shale?
They wouldn't.
And here's the part that kills me:
Trump keeps saying he wants $50 oil.
But $50 oil DESTROYS the investment case for Venezuelan production.
You can't spend $180 billion rebuilding infrastructure if oil prices are suppressed.
The economics don't work.
So either:
1. Oil stays at $50 and nobody invests in Venezuela
2. Oil rises to $80+ and Venezuela becomes viable but prices don't crash anyway
Trump can't have both.
So even IF someone could rebuild the infrastructure...
Venezuela's political situation is still a mess.
Maduro's supposedly leaving. But to who? Maria Corina Machado? Another strongman?
Nobody knows what the government will look like in 12 months.
Major oil companies don't invest billions into that level of uncertainty.
They need 10-year stability guarantees.
Venezuela can't provide that.
The US Shale Comparison:
Meanwhile, Trump's threatening to cut oil prices.
US rig count is already falling.
Shale producers are pulling back on new drilling.
If you artificially suppress oil prices, you REDUCE future supply.
Not just in Venezuela. Everywhere.
Low prices = less investment = tighter supply later.
It's basic economics.
The Realistic Timeline:
Absolute best case with Chevron's existing operations:
- 18-24 months to add 200-500k bpd
- Total Venezuelan production hits 1.1-1.5M bpd
- Still nowhere near the 3M bpd everyone's expecting
That's not a game-changer for global oil markets.
My Take on Energy Stocks:
I don’t see much downside in oil prices from here (geopolitics providing a floor), and I believe energy stocks remain attractive on the cycle.
But Trump's $50 oil talk is exactly that - talk.
The gap between political promises and physical reality has never been wider.
You can't tweet oil fields into existence.
You can't executive order decades of infrastructure neglect away.
And you definitely can't rebuild a collapsed petro-state while simultaneously crashing the price of its only export.
Energy reality > political promises
Every. Single. Time.
If you live in Salt Lake area please share this post with anyone in need this year. We are giving away 10,000 toys on Wed, just show up & grab 5-6 toys per kid. No catch!
520 S 850 E Suite A5, Lehi, UT