Posted on Sun, 08/03/2008 - 13:08 — by allamericanbear
Ms. Tauscher,
I hope you are enjoying your last vacation on the public payroll.
When you and your fellow democrats decided to follow the lead of Ms Pelosi and adjourn without allowing a vote on domestic drilling, your fate as a congressperson was, as they say, sealed. After all, what’s more important, you going on vacation or doing the people’s business? You made your choice and now I am making mine.
Be assured, I will not be voting for you in the upcoming election and further, I will encourage any friend, associate or enemy of mine to do likewise. In addition, I will never ever again vote for a Democrat, no matter how moderate they may be.
During this energy crisis, you have shown that you have no backbone to oppose your party for the good of your constituents, to go beyond politics to do the public good. Rather, you would choose to hide behind Ms Pelosi, hoping she would protect you from the wrath of those who would vote for you.
Let me ask you, I thought the Democrat Party was out to help the poor of this country. High gas prices are hurting the poorest of the poor. People are loosing their jobs. Hell, you don’t care. You and your party are a disgrace and continue to insult the intelligence of the American people. The very idea that Ms Pelosi would advocate invading the strategic oil reserve as a solution tells everyone just how much of a joke your party is.
Congressperson, we need to do everything. We should drill for oil offshore and in Alaska. We should extract it from shale. We need more nuclear power. We have to expand wind, geothermal and solar energy. We need more coal. We need more flex cars. We need more ethanol from both domestic production and from imports. We need methanol. We need all of these.
If we embark on a program to convert all mass transportation systems using gasoline, you know, like municipal buses, to natural gas, it could result in a savings of 8 million barrels of oil a day; we currently import 12 million a day. If this were to happen, all of our imported oil would come from friendly countries; the Middle East would be eliminated as a source of imported oil. Why aren’t you out there pushing for this? I know why, your vacation is more important. We now know what your priorities are; it’s going on vacation.
By the way, I know Manpower can be a source of temporary employment. Check the yellow pages.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Have you ever stopped to think that more than half the current problem lies in people always demanding more? What if (1) we all used less and (2) we realize that long after all the oil is gone, we will have to live with whatever is left of the earth we have left? You know, of course, that producing oil wells on American soil have been capped for years; you know, of course, that oil companies already lease 68,000,000 acres of federal land and are drilling for oil on less than a quarter of it; and you know, of course, that any new start-up drilling will not get to market for about another decade, so they will have absolutely no affect on the prices that have you so concerned (the prices that are dropping, incidentally, now that we have put a little heat and light of day on the futures market speculators). Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi's leadership, only did what the Republican majority did for the past 12 years whenever popular legislation bubbled to the front burner but to which they were opposed. Did you cry "foul" back then? Sorry, but that's hard core politics, taken directly from the Newt Gingrich handbook.
And besides that, the Democrats are correct. But those who live only for the moment and have no long-range vision find that hard to understand. What if Ronald Reagan had not allowed the aggressive alternative energy programs and tax incentives established under the Carter Administration to disappear? What if he had not consciously and unceremoniously torn the solar panels off the White House roof? I am so tired of conservatives standing in the doorway and blocking change that I can just puke.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
Rather than your reflexive high voice "Bush/CheneyReagan/NeoCons did IT" ........ did you ever stop to NOTICE..........that the Chinese are hustling in Africa (quiet support for socialist monster Mugabe etc.) and grabbing EVERY oil lease that is not nailed down including the Caribbean ---where we worry over the snail darters. The Humongous nations like China and India are rather enamored of the industrial revolution and for increasing capacity to participate in same. Meanwhile Global Warmer twinkdinks....give them a PASS on emission limitations. YOU guys are SO FULL of it.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Yes.
And what have all the sabers and weapons and military expenditures (not to mention lost lives) from Republicans done to stop China and India from revitalizing their economies and entering the modern era (which everyone from everywhere has been trying to prevent for the last five centuries)? How do you propose keeping a sleeping giant down?
Personally, paying attention to canaries in coal mines (like the snail darter that you reference ... that lives in Tennessee and doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with oil exploration) is far more civilized than keeping both feet firmly planted in the industrial revolution ... but that is so conservative a position, don't you just know it, always afraid to stick your toes in strange waters.
Yes ... I blame Reagan. He embarked upon a policy designed to crush the middle class (and most certainly reduce it to something negligible but still useful to the needs as servitors of the privileged class) and permanently anchored the American economy to petrochemicals and their unfettered, unregulated, and unchecked consumption -- even though the writing was on the wall about the future of energy and the U.S. was making tentative steps to nobly confront the future. Instead, Reagan will go down in history as the buffoon who made a definitive statement about where HE wanted us to go when he tore the solar panels off the White House roof, speaking to future generations that he (and, by definition, the rest of us) turned his back on the future and threw our lot in with the Gilded Age.
No one wants to give China and India a pass on emissions. If anyone has done that, it is George W. Bush -- you may recall that that was the primary reason he refused to sign the Kyoto Protocols, and delayed for another eight years any positive, constructive, useful and meaningful steps to clean up the planet. Why did he do that? Well, take your pick: (1) he's a baby, whining "well, they're doing it too, and we're not going to stop until they do" or (2) I am an oil guy from an oil state with an oil vice president (one who actually understands the business world from which he comes) telling me what to do, and we're going to make every buck we can today by sucking every last penny's worth of oil out of the ground while the sucking is good, no matter what it costs America in the long run.
Even eight years of serious investment and research into alternative fuels, or eight years of trying to figure out how to safely and securely dispose of nuclear waste, would have given us a leg up (not as much as 30 years, of course, but at least we could have made a dent in the bucket). Look how much and how fast things have changed just in the last couple of years. I, for example, purchased my first hybrid car (made in Japan) in 2000. They practically gave it to me, since no one else wanted one. Wind turbines in 2000 were an eyesore and most people who saw them didn't have a clue what they even were. And solar panels were still Disney fairy tales, as far as most people were concerned. Leap-frog to today ... in just eight years, look how much things have changed. And not with much help from the Bush administration. Almost all development has taken place with support from state governments, independent investment, and popular demand.
Gosh ... that sounds like "capitalism" to me. And where has the Republican party been in this mix? Cut taxes and give huge tax incentives to the oil companies! How many major tax incentives have Republicans provided for (or even offered) to those seeking to invent or develop and mass produce alternative energy sources. I can tell you: almost NONE!
Conservatives have a very important role to play in society, so it is not correct to tell them to go back into their caves and live in the past. I would only say they need to open their eyes and embrace the future.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 179
We have only 21 billion barrels of oil reserves. The top 12 nations have 1137 billion barrels. (source: Oil & Gas Journal, January, 2007). We use 20.6% of the world's oil (source: Energy Information Administration). You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to see that quickly draining our few remaining reserves dry will have no effect on the price of oil.
What we need is an immediate carbon tax (concurrent with cuts in the payroll tax). We also need to refuse to trade with nations who won’t institute a similar carbon tax. (India and China currently subsidize domestic petroleum use.)
If my advice is followed, Americans will continue down the path of using less and less energy as the price rises. Millions of Yankee entrepreneurs will fill the void by trying to produce other forms of energy and to design industrial processes and lifestyles that use energy more efficiently. Good old-fashioned Yankee ingenuity will be unleashed (unless their creativity has been destroyed by TV, Ritalin, and No Child Left Behind). This will propel us back to the forefront of nations as other countries are forced to pay us for our new technologies.
True, we may have to cut back on Hummers, unfettered AC use, aimless driving, and flying to Cabo for the weekend. And we may have to give up endless sprawl development as the "American Dream." No big loss.
I have previously explained the folly of advocating expanded oil drilling as a solution to our energy future. This is not a debate between Republicans and Democrats. It is case of ignorance versus science. Allamericanbear, please turn off Fox News and study my posts more carefully.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 73
But you fail to realize that the faux network is the only channel on these people's televisions.
Any network that tells the truth is too painful for them to watch or listen to.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4
Bring Cong. Pelosi and Sen. Reid to account. Shame on Congess and leadership for taking 5 weeks vacation while the rest of us are working and paying for $4/gal. gas. Write or call our Senators Boxer, Feinstein and respective representative and tell them to go back to work and draw up a comprehensive long term energy bill.
Pelosi going around TV camera's explaining that oil drilling will not make a difference is insane. Doing nothing is certainly not going to make a difference and certainly making all of us pay $4/gal or more for years to come.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 179
Doesn't congress and the President always go on vacation in August, whether headed by Democrats or Republicans? Seems kind of unfair to only blame Pelosi and Reid. All the GOP politicians are going on junkets and fundraisers too.
And xinps, I would like to see your economic analysis of how the US can drill the price of oil down, given our puny reserves and massive consumption.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4
bucksavage,
It is fair game to criticize and bring Congress to account especially when alot of US citizens are feeling the pinch, It is plain arrogance when I hear Pelosi blaming and whinning that it's Bush's fault when Pelosi and Reid leadership in congress is doing nothing to help the common people.
Congress is led by Democrats if they can not show leadership then step a side, stop complaining, blaming and whinning and do something. Pelosi keeps on saying that we have the worse president, You know what we have? the worse Congress led by Democrats, Do Nothing Congress(DNC).
I do not need to make an economic presentation to show that domestic drilling will make a diffrence, It is common knowlegde that doing something is better than nothing. We need to start a long term comprehensive energy plan and start NOW, Mc Cain is right for once to start now and do all alternative power sources like Nuclear, wind, and solar etc.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Your argument is fine sounding, until looking at the specifics.
McCain and Republicans are NOT calling for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. They are calling for one thing, and one thing alone: continued dependence on fossil fuels. Somehow, oil drilled domestically that won't come available for ten years is not going to solve any immediate problem, and it is only going to push the need to find alternatives back yet another decade. The Bush Administration held a series of very well-publicized (but top secret) meetings early in 2001 to create an "energy policy". When finally revealed, it not only emphasized continued reliance on oil (foreign oil, to boot) and coal ... but it supported an unnecessary war effort and it failed to take bold steps to support development of alternative energy sources (well, the President got pretty excited about Hydrogen fuel cells for a couple of months, but that was about the extent of it). The meetings were so secret, that the Vice President still refuses to even tell us who attended, let alone what they said and what influence they had on the process.
So much for blame. I do not see any new proposals emanating from the Republican side of the aisle ... more oil and more nukes. This is all by way of saying we need a long term energy policy NOW! Well, you are correct, but no one is giving us one. In 1980 we had a similar discussion. Guess which way the Republicans took us back then?
As to the Do Nothing Congress ... this is good sloganeering (seriously, I think the DNC acronym is quite clever and effective). It's just that it's not quite true. It ignores the fact that the Democratic "majority" is about as narrow as is possible (one vote, depending on how Joe Lieberman votes), and that it is impossible to ever get the 60 vote majority necessary to pass any bill ... unless it is so incredibly and overwhelmingly obvious to be the right thing to do that even the obstructionists have to say "okay". The Republicans have an awful lot to do with the fact that this Congress has the MOST NUMBER OF BLOCKED BILLS in the history of the Congress -- that is, bills introduced that were defeated.
Granted, the Dems could have been more conciliatory. They could have let Republicans write all the bills in order to guarantee their passage. I suspect that would have made you and all Republicans quite happy. But you know (or should know) that politics doesn't work that way, and the Party in power does not turn its power over to the other guys (think back to the 12 preceding years if you need a refresher course). More realistically, Dems could have better included Republicans in the bill writing process, and even made stronger efforts to find common ground.
Personally, I think we are approaching a time very similar to the ten years preceding the Civil War -- there is no common ground, there is no willingness to talk or concede points, and we are stuck with nothing done, no problems solved, and we just continue to drift -- through inaction and indifference -- to a major major meltdown.
Here's hoping I am wrong.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 321
70% of Americans want action now, Bush rescinded the executive order that bans drilling, the ball is now in Pelosi and Reids court.
By not allowing a vote, which I thought was the democratic way, Pelosi is playing Russian roulette with the voting public. I don't see her reasoning that she is trying to save the planet by not allowing the vote when there are other countries that are drilling, especially in our back door.
I sure do hope Pelosi and company are enjoying their vacations at taxpayers expense, because I sure would like to enjoy mine high gas prices were not a deterrent thanks to the inaction of this do-nothing congress.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
First ... no other country is drilling "in our backdoor". The rumors of China obtaining leases in the Caribbean are just that ... urban mythology run amok.
No one in the Democratic Party objects to drilling, more drilling, and even more drilling after that. They just want the oil companies to drill on the land they have already been given before the people of the U.S. give them even more land. How is drilling on the continental shelf tomorrow going to provide any quantities of oil any faster than if they drill on the 42,000,000 acres they already lease and aren't doing anything with? You have been tricked.
This reminds me of the great Railroad Land Giveaway of the 19th century. You know, where the federal government gave alternate sections of land to railroad companies in order to "stimulate" the construction of railroads. Do you have any conception of how much land the feds gave to private companies on which they never built anything? Take a trip up to Trinity and Siskiyou County one of these days, and look around to see just how much private land is available for you to purchase on which to build your dream home ... or graze your cattle, or dig a hole in the ground looking for gold, or clear cut a forest (if this were a Democratic administration, I would have said "selectively cut" a forest). The federal government and the state of California still hold an awful lot of it in trust for the people of the U.S. and the state (though all those agencies are more than willing to lease you the right to graze, mine and/or log as much as you want ... they just won't let you build a home), but an awful lot of it is owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the heirs/companies that have morphed from SPRRC into something more politically correct (like Southern Pacific Lumber Company, or the Mazama company that purchased large hunks of SP forest so it could cut and sell huge swaths of old-growth redwood forest to ship to Japan to make into plywood and pulp).
Is that what you want for the future of your grandchildren? When the surface of the planet gets too crowded or inhospitable for them to live on it, they can rent a bubble home off the coast from Chevron, who still calls the shots and influences politics in the 22nd century because of our largesse in the 21st.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
shays says:
No one in the Democratic Party objects to drilling, more drilling, and even more drilling after that. They just want the oil companies to drill on the land they have already been given before the people of the U.S. give them even more land. How is drilling on the continental shelf tomorrow going to provide any quantities of oil any faster than if they drill on the 42,000,000 acres they already lease and aren't doing anything with? You have been tricked.
You aledge that the oil companies have 42 million acres they already lease and aren't doing anything with. Did it ever occur to you that these acres don't have oil on them, that the oil companies have already determined what oil there is on this acreage is too costly to bring to market even at today's oil prices. Do you really believe that if there was oil, the oil companies could bring to market at a profit that they would not drill for it?
Drilling anywhere where there is proven oil that can be brought to the market at a profit to the oil companies is going to lower the price. No matter that the oil cannot come to market for years, just the announcement that, in the future, there will be more supply will take whatever speculation there is built into the current price of oil out of it. That amount could be upwards of $20 a barrel and we would see immediate relief at the gas pump.
I'm afraid it's been you who have been fooled into using Democrat talking points. Drilling now is just a short term solution while we come up with a comprehensive energy policy which should include nuclear power and the use of natural gas in all mass transportation systems using gasoline. Just converting public transportation vehicles to using natural gas will eliminate the need for ALL foreign oil.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
(1) Why would "smart" managers put down good money to lease land under which there is no oil?
(2) I am merely reporting what the Bush Administration itself is reporting ... 40,000,000 + acres of federal land leased on which the oil companies have not even begun exploratory drilling. Have you heard them say it is too costly to drill there? Or are you simply parroting the propaganda cascading from the manhattan (et.al.) think tanks ... regardless of how the vast right-wing internet conspiracy tries to mask things?
(3) Again ... how does beginning exploratory drilling tomorrow in off-shore locations get oil to American refineries (refineries that are still exporting oil and gasoline, by the way) any sooner than drilling in places they already are paying leases for? Seems to me that if they are paying for a lease in Montana (or Alaska, where LOTS and LOTS of oil exists right next door to ANWR) that they are not using, and then pay a lease for oil off-shore, that whatever price finally works its way down to you and I is going to have to cover the cost of BOTH leases, not just one. Some savings, huh?
(4) Speaking of savings! To try to cover its arse from acute embarrassment, executives from EXXON/Mobil tried to explain that almost ALL of their current excessive profits in the second quarter ($11.5 BILLION, in case you forgot ... about $128 million a DAY) came from the high price of crude oil. Now, I may be an economic dunce, but it seems to me that if you are making a profit from the high price of crude oil, it is because you are SELLING it, not because you are buying it. Otherwise, your profit would have to come, after buying it at higher prices, raising the price of your gasoline (and other petrochemicals) to first cover the cost of the crude + the expense of refining it + profit.
In either case, something is fishy! If, in the latter case (hey, we have no control, we have to pay the price for crude those dirty Arabs are demanding), the profit comes on gasoline, why must they raise the price on refined product so much? Most sane people easily recognize that, in a time of so-called crisis, we all make a little sacrifice for the common good. An $11.5 BILLION profit seems somewhat excessive when everyone else is sucking eggs (assuming they can afford to buy any) ... so why not lower the price of the gasoline to $3.50 a gallon (or $3.00 a gallon) and make only a $8 billion profit? If, however, the executives were speaking the truth, and they are making that excessive profit based on the sale of crude oil ... why not just sell the oil for less? Instead of $140 a barrel, why not $120 (or $100, or $60)? Remember, this is a time of "crisis"?
(5) Personally, I think it is a time of manufactured crisis. Just as Enron manipulated an electrical energy shortage and manipulated its profits, so too are the oil companies taking us for a ride. The cost to them? Well, $11.5 BILLION in profit doesn't seem like a very large cost, does it? Getting access to yet even more American public land seems like a pretty good deal, too? Scaring 70% of all Americans to stampede in their direction also seems like a gain! In fact, I see absolutely NO COST to the oil companies. However, I see a big cost for you and I. Because when the oil crisis and shortage really does hit, we won't have anything left to fall back on.
(6) No ... it is you who has bought the petrochemical company's line. Even your "long-term" solutions reflect policies and programs that serve their needs. It is time to move beyond internal combustion engines driven by carbon. The longer we stall and let Big Oil keep its fingers in our sugar bowl, the longer our lives will be soured. The only thing that might actually reduce the price of carbon-based products would be to exercise anti-trust legislation and break up the oil companies. Then, we might actually get some real competition ... some of them (or maybe what we used to call "wildcatters") will take risks and get oil from places they all say are now impossible to get; they might invest in technologies making the efforts more efficient; they might even be willing to engage in something as simple as a good old-fashioned "gas war". The last time Chevron got busted up, the price of everything collapsed (and Chevron did just fine, if I remember correctly).
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
(2) This is message #2 to All American Bear ...
Now that I have your attention, there is more that can be said ... and it can be said with a lot less hostility. There IS reason to talk about opening up some offshore drilling -- if done carefully and in the appropriate areas -- if for no other reason than five to ten years from now we will still have reserves supporting our transition away from fossil fuels. I do not think there is a person on the planet who believes passing a law opening up new areas for drilling will bring immediate relief to the pump (and the "psychological" reduction of $20 per barrel also would not occur), but strategically, it provides back-up down the road. So ... it was wrong for the Democratic leadership to play politics with oil and not allow any discussion. Reasonable compromises could have been found, if anyone was willing to compromise.
I am not so sure the Republicans were any more willing to be compromisers, however. Had the Dems given an inch, they would have settled for nothing less than a mile. I could be wrong, and I would have been willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. At this juncture, it is pure speculation as the opportunity for a thoughtful (and perhaps meaningful) compromise has passed. At least until Congress reassembles.
This point is emphasized by the Republicans hard line on other important issues. Republicans refused to pass a proposed extension of tax subsidies for wind and solar energy (the vote came up one shy in the Senate ... 59 votes in favor). Republicans also blocked a bill aimed at curbing speculation in oil markets. This speculation ... even according the Big Oil ... has contributed to the upward spiral of prices. Similarly, a bill designed to provide financial assistance to home owners needing heating oil was also blocked by Republicans.
No sir. Everyone is more than willing to play politics with energy rather than try to find real solutions. Either they are all really stupid (and there is ample evidence to suggest that those lazy elected officials who feed much more handsomely from the public trough than do the most professional of welfare bums), or they know something we don't ... like maybe the so-called "energy crisis" is more hot air than a real problem.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 179
shays must have been a good teacher, because he is very patient with the children (and childlike thinkers). His explanations are clear and well organized. Also, he makes no errors in spelling or grammar. I hope the "drill now!" advocates who listen slavishly to Limbaugh and Hannity will take the time to think about what shays has to say.
We don't have a lot of oil reserves. We should save them for the future and concentrate on conservation and alternate forms of energy now. America needs to take the technological lead in these areas, or we will continue our downhill slide. Even a right-winger like Pickens sees that.
Real patriots would be willing to give up a little now in order to strengthen America for the future. It is selfish to run huge deficits to finance a materialistic consumeristic lifestyle, and it is selfish to charge ahead with draining our oil reserves so that we can drive our SUVs for another few months and crank the AC one more summer. Think about America, not yourself.
U.S.A.!
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
shays says:
Republicans also blocked a bill aimed at curbing speculation in oil markets. This speculation ... even according the Big Oil ... has contributed to the upward spiral of prices.
Its funny, you don't say why the bill was blocked. I will tell you why, there was an admendment attached to the bill for excess profit taxes on the oil companies. I'm sure that if I looked hard enough, I would find good reasons why the other bills were blocked by Republicians. Maybe you can save me some time and tell us all why Republicans blocked these bills other than the implied reason that they were just being mean.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I only mentioned the first three that came to mind. There were about three or four other Democratic proposals that got shot down just before Congress went on recess besides the ones I mentioned. Most failed to get the 60 votes needed to bring the measures to the floor, so they were referred back to committee (which means "death knell"). It also makes it hard to track the history of a bill (as an aside to trying to track a bill's history, have you noticed a growing pattern, almost universal in the media -- mainstream, alternative, electronic, blogged or otherwise -- to not identify a bill by its number?).
If Republicans failed to support one of the pieces of legislation that I mentioned because there was an amendment regarding a windfalls profit tax, I cannot find it. The only reference to such a bill is one passed by the House and now before the Senate, where two weeks ago it was moved along by a 94-0 vote. Maybe they attached it as an "amendment"? I sure cannot find reference to it, anywhere that I searched.
Be that as it may, I suspect that your sources are accurate (though in this day and age, it would be the source I would not trust before thinking you were being disingenuous -- there are an awful lot of shady, snarky and manipulative folks out there on the internet, and on all sides of every argument, to boot). As a result, I understand that Republicans think windfall profits are an okay thing. I understand that they would oppose an amendment that would make it illegal for the oil companies to be making extra dollars on the American oil junkies ... assuming, of course, that it could be proven that windfall profits were indeed being made (a step the bill included, I am sure). I can even understand that Republicans don't want the courts to even look to see if windfall profits were being made, let alone making them illegal. So I am not surprised that this is one of the reasons they gave for not wanting to support a measure that two weeks ago was moved along by that 94-0 vote on the floor.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that I think you got the implication I was making correct ... they were just being "mean". Petty would be a better word. It's the old elementary school game -- you didn't give me what I want, so I will stop you from getting anything you want. Neener neener neener!
Certainly there are Democrats AND Republicans who find good reasons to oppose the legislation offered by the other side; however, they are in the minority. The majority are currently embroiled in what Scotty McClellan called (and popularized by using the term, though many more thoughtful than he had described the phenomena long before Scotty shared his "tell-all" with us) the "permanent campaign". No one is going to say or do anything that might in any way provide an advantage to the other side.
Now ... this is clearly one reason we must reform the election process (as soon as possible) -- objectify the redistricting process, take money out of elections, maybe reconfigure the party system. It is also a reason to suspect what many of us have known all along -- that the professional political class (whether they are term-limited or elected for life) is either the most corrupt body on the planet, or the stupidest.
But it is also a reason to suspect that the "crisis" we are facing is not really a crisis. It is manufactured, and the politicos know it (like Enron, like the gas crisis of the 1970s, like the "imminent threat of Saddam Hussein", etc.). If there were really a crisis, then American oil companies would voluntarily share in the cost and pain suffered by Americans and reduce their profit margin. If they would not do so voluntarily, Congress would force them to act. Congress enacted such legislation during the Second World War, and enforced it vigorously. If we had a REAL crisis, and our future depended upon it, don't you think we could come together to solve the problem? Instead, everyone still stubbornly sticks only to their own perceived solution.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Shays,
I was incorrect on my assertion that Republicans voted against the oil speculation bill because of the windfall profits tax addition.
There were two bills, #S.3004 which would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies to discourage price gouging and to help consumers offset the high costs of energy products and to punish any country or company colluding in setting the price of oil and limit excessive speculation in oil markets. This bill was blocked by Republicans.
The second bill, #S.3268, which would lower energy prices by increasing regulation of energy futures trading and eliminating excessive specualation is still being considered by the full Senate.
So Republicans blocked a bill that would impose windfall profits tax. It had nothing to do with the second bill which was meant to curb speculation. I would support the second bill.
In the future, when comments are made about either party voting against a bill, there should be commentary on the REASON they voted down the bill. Otherwise, there is no balanced presentation.
You may suspect there is no oil crisis. But to state that this is simular to a fraud like Enron, costs you creditablity. There is no doubt the we are being held hostage by Middle Eastern oil shieks who control oil output. We currently use 2.5 million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East. We need to cut off that oil supply and replace it with our own oil or other forms of energy.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Thanks for finding and identifying the bill numbers for me. Stating why a bloc of Senators or Representatives vote against a bill is sometimes difficult to do, and usually open to speculation ... unless they want their point to be made. The point I take is that there is a tremendous amount of immature and childish tit-for-tat voting by both sides. This is particularly apparent when many bills related to similar ideas and/or outcomes are passed or defeated at the same time ... as was the case with the flurry of energy bills presented and voted on (or not voted on, as the case may be) just before the last recess. And if you can tell me why Harry Reid voted "no" on the motion for cloture on his own bill (S. 3268) ... the ONLY Democrat to thusly vote "no" ... then you get 15 bonus apples.
Yes, I DO believe there is no energy crisis. Yes, I DO believe it is manufactured primarily by speculators and a manufactured shortage of supply. No one believed that ENRON was capable of doing such a thing back then ... but hey! The oil companies are going to walk away with excessive profit for what, the 8th or 9th consecutive quarter (each time, each profit more swollen than the one before it), and there is "nothing" they can do to lower the price of gasoline? Baloney. If there were a true crisis, actually threatening the security and well-being of the country, they would most certainly be able to do that (and if they didn't, we would make them). So far, neither is happening, so I see no true threat.
That doesn't change the price to you and me. But how can you continue to defend them?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
First ... no other country is drilling "in our backdoor". The rumors of China obtaining leases in the Caribbean are just that ... urban mythology run amok. You can not stand the truth when it bites you in the backside, do you.
Sen. Bill Nelson wants to block exploration and drilling less than 50 miles from Key West that would benefit China.
By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Published May 8, 2006
Few Americans paid much attention last year when Cuban President Fidel Castro announced China would help explore potentially large oil reserves off Cuba's northwest coast - not far from the Florida Keys.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/08/Worldandnation/Cuba_seeks_oil_near_K.shtml
So much for urban rumours running amok
No one in the Democratic Party objects to drilling, more drilling, and even more drilling after that. That is why the democrats are running scare of an debate and vote on an energy bill that would open up more drilling. And they have required permiting and processing of applications to drill, that Democrats then, uniformly block. Remember that the best advice the Demeocrats have to offer Americans suffering from high gass prices is use less. The assistance they offer is nothing, since they enjoy seeing Americans suffer.
The federal government and the state of California still hold an awful lot of it in trust for the people of the U.S. and the state (though all those agencies are more than willing to lease you the right to graze, mine and/or log as much as you want ... they just won't let you build a home), BS again, in the State of Caliofornia more Federal grazing leases on BLM were revoked then issued this year. Our local State parks are enforcing no grazing bans, leading to increased fire threats to many more home, (for which the State should be liable) . The loony liberals in their guise as nasty little enviromental whackos are in the process of removing all traces of human from public lands.
But you have to admit, Shays has plenty of BS from Oregon to bath Californians in California.
Is that what you want for the future of your grandchildren? An economy they can succeed in or open space. Food to eat, or beautiful hills they can look at? A home to live in or an 8 x 12 allotted space in concrete high rise? Shays is right, you have important choices to make. Shays and his ilk are promoting a Marxist society in which no one can fail or succeeed. Orwell pictured well the future Shays is promoting. So the question is, is that what you want?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Do you even read the caca that you post? The article you attached says that last year, the Castro government announced that China would help Cuba explore
Few Americans paid much attention last year when Cuban President Fidel Castro announced China would help explore potentially large oil reserves off Cuba's northwest coast …
Please note the use of a couple of key words in the first sentence: "last year" and "would help explore". Obviously, the Chinese "drilling" is not taking place, and even exploration has not begun. But there's more in the article you gave us:
"There's been very little drilling offshore and there's uncertainty over how much oil there is,'' said Chris Schenk of the U.S. Geological Survey. "There's less than in the Gulf of Mexico, but from a Cuban perspective, it would be a lot.''
and
While oil has yet to be found in commercially viable quantities, Craig of Idaho told his Senate colleagues April 26 that the United States is jeopardizing its energy security by not letting U.S. oil companies explore potential sources in Cuba.
But since you never believe me, here's a few more sources for you to check out:
"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period,'' Jorge Piñon, an energy expert at the University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy, told the Miami Herald. The Herald added: China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Piñon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling. Western diplomats in Havana told McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge there is no Chinese drilling offshore.
The Congressional Research Service debunks the claim:
"While there has been some concern about China’s potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore oil extraction in Pinar del Rio province through its state-run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation."
Republican Senator Mel Martinez tells the McClatchey news service (June 11, 2008):
No one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.
The rest of your argument takes off on tangents and superficial nit-picks about property rights, completely ignoring the key point (and key analogy) of the US government GIVING UP PUBLIC LAND to the railroad tycoons of the 19th century – the equivalent, then, of the Oil Barons of today – who then did nothing with the free land they were given except exploit it for their own profit and then sell it off when the public got wise. There were a couple of things you said at the end that require response, however:
But you have to admit, Shays has plenty of BS from Oregon to bath Californians in California.
(Oh, yeah, I just wanted to point out that the above quoted passage -- which I modified in font -- was posted by CinClayton in Arial-Black, Font Size 17, Bold-face … just to make sure we could all read it)
Yes, I have retired from a career of public school teaching in California to a rural homestead in northern Oregon. I am a native Californian, however. I resided in the southern half (Long Beach) for 29 years, the True North (Trinity County) for 20, and the Central Coast (Monterey County) for 8. Though happy to be an Oregonian (where whackos like some of the wing nuts on this board are few and far between), I do not believe in "bath"-ing Californians with BS. I take a certain pride in pointing out the lies and distortions of folks like Clayton.
An economy they can succeed in or open space. Food to eat, or beautiful hills they can look at? A home to live in or an 8 x 12 allotted space in concrete high rise? Shays is right, you have important choices to make. Shays and his ilk are promoting a Marxist society in which no one can fail or succeeed. Orwell pictured well the future Shays is promoting. So the question is, is that what you want?
So much distortion and so little time to cover it all! I am afraid that the open space Clayton describes (not to mention ample food) will not come about with laissez-faire, unregulated capitalism. Open spaces and self-sustaining economies are not a product of the global market-place he champions. That market place is based upon growth. Growth, in turn, is based upon consumption. And the two can only exist in a planet that rapidly depopulates and reduces demands on limited and finite natural resources. EXXON/Mobil does not exist because of conservation and open space. Monsanto, Nestles, AJ Reynolds, Plaxo-Klein, Cal-Am Water (a German Company), Hunts (etc.) do not exist without increased consumption. Most of the world has run out of space to build single-family homes on lots of acreage. The U.S. has not. But not if we all seek to live in the same place. The 8x12 mandated space is going to be the rule of some fascist regime, not a liberal administration. Certainly everyone knows this. And certainly everyone knows that the MadMax future world is a product of economic collapse and/or global nuclear war.
I am not promoting a Marxist future. Much of Karl Marx is passe. But I do believe that people served also need to control the means of production. "Control" is something as simple as being able to effectively regulate the excesses of concentrated wealth. Individual small businesses … moms and pops and the neighborhood plumber are pretty much regulated by the market place; THAT is the type of capitalism that is market driven and gets you into trouble when you provide crummy product, lousy service, or dishonest dealings. It is only BIG SHOTS who are well-connected who get away with those types of behaviors, because they control the market place (and the politicians and the regulators politicians appoint).
Finally, George Orwell recognized something in the Statist Communist regime of Joseph Stalin something that idiots like Clayton just cannot get through their thick skulls (maybe because they drank too much John Birch koolaid in their youth and were to salivate properly at the very mention of "communism") … the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime that corrupted Marxism just as EXXON/Mobil corrupts capitalism. Russia (and then the USSR) was a state run corporation that devalued human life, spirit, and vision for the sake of the State (and the individuals lucky enough and canny enough to at least momentarily weasel their way to the top). George Orwell, in everything he wrote, lampooned and bitterly rejected the totalitarian state of Russia (and he fought against Hitler and Franco) while still holding out hope for a true socialist revolution. But you are such a literal zombie, that I doubt very much if you have even understood a single word that George Orwell penned. As a writer, George Orwell is in the top five of my all-time single influences.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 73
Again please note that all of the words in the post you are replying to are big and bold and hence the truth is inversely proportional to same. Bigger and bolder equals less honesty and more balderdash.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
Pelosi: At-risk Dems back drilling
By: Martin Kady II and Patrick O'Connor
August 5, 2008 07:44 AM EST
California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet — but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.
Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months — even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.
“The reality is we will have a new president in three months, and what Bush and the Republicans are trying to do amounts to a land grab for the oil companies,” said one senior House Democratic aide involved with party strategy. “I don’t think we have to give in at all pre-election — we have many more options postelection.”
It’s a reality that Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.) personally delivered to President Bush recently.
Rahall spent more than an hour last week talking to the president about energy. Bush spent the entire flight aboard Air Force One, and much of a subsequent limousine ride, grilling the West Virginia Democrat about legislative solutions to the high price of gasoline, Rahall said last week.
So, does the president think Congress can get anything done this year?
“No,” Rahall replied in a short interview with Politico. “He’s realistic about it.”
Asked if Congress will produce a comprehensive energy bill in September before Congress adjourns again for elections, Rahall replied, “This year? No.”
Instead, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources believes Democrats are all about 2009.
“We’ve laid the groundwork this year,” Rahall said.
Democratic House aides say the energy agenda has been carefully gamed out in strategy sessions, and Pelosi always intended to take heat on gas prices while tacitly encouraging more vulnerable Democrats to publicly disagree with her and show their independence.
Freshman Democrats like Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania and Don Cazayoux of Louisiana have taken her up on the offer.
Altmire has said a drilling vote “will happen,” while Cazayoux, hoping to hang on to his seat in a conservative Baton Rouge-area district, on Friday sent a letter to Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) demanding a vote on more domestic oil exploration.
“There will be a vote,” said Altmire, who faces a rematch with former GOP Rep. Melissa Hart this fall in the Pittsburgh suburbs.
Indeed, Congress must vote before Sept. 30 to renew the annual moratorium; otherwise, it will lapse on its own, giving states the right to decide whether private companies can search for potential drilling sites three miles offshore. .
“My view is that if we have a vote, let’s make it a rational policy,” said Altmire, whose district includes viable coal and nuclear industries. “We can’t let Republicans hold this issue hostage because of one vote.”
Cazayoux, in his letter, says “the current debate seems to be bogged down in partisan one-upmanship.”
To some extent, House Republicans seem to be playing right along with the strategy, taking Pelosi’s name in vain dozens of times during their rebel House sessions over the past few days and making her the villain who won’t allow oil drilling votes.
“It’s grossly unfair to the Democrats who want a vote,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). “[Pelosi] needs to cut that out.”
The Senate has also gone with a run-out-the-clock strategy, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) calling for a bipartisan energy summit but promising no major energy votes. Reid embraced the drilling and conservation proposals of the bipartisan Senate “Gang of 10” last week, but he made further commitment on the energy debate.
Reid, like Pelosi, is expecting to have a much stronger governing majority in the Senate next year, so he has little incentive to give in to Republicans on energy policy as long as he thinks it won’t hurt Democrats.
Even as they face heat from constituents during the August break, Democrats say they aren’t going to cave in to popular pressure.
“We feel pretty comfortable with where we are,” said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.), who is close to the Democratic leadership. “This is a not a new issue. This just didn’t happen today. We’ve been working on this for months.”
Democratic insiders said that Pelosi and other party leaders were “not rattled” by the GOP floor rebellion, and at this point, it’s not clear if the Democrats will even pay a price on energy. State-level polling conducted by Democrats suggests that voters still view President Bush and the GOP as the incumbent power in Washington, and Democratic strategists believe any anti-incumbent wave would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, one of the leaders of the rogue GOP House session, said he realizes that Democrats are “in a four-corners stall right now,” and admits that “it gets more challenging” for Republicans if they lose more seats in Congress.
Democrats are also comforted somewhat by the fact that crude oil prices have gone down more than 10 percent from their summer highs, and if the U.S. economy enters a recession, prices may fall further due to slackening demand.
“There is no crisis on our side of the aisle,” a top House Democratic leadership aide said. “We have a plan, and we will stick to it.”
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Republicans have, indeed, circled the wagons ... knowing full well they will be swept up the River without any proverbial paddles come November ... and are trying to grab as much for their partners in crime as possible before packing their bags and heading for the exit. Reminds me ever so much of South American dictators filling their suitcases with piles of gold while the popular uprising swells outside the Presidential Palace. Using old federal land grants that are still begging to be drilled instead of passing out new ones like a great big Candy Store really turns the tables on the old "liberal/conservative" argument. It used to be conservatives would argue ... don't give stuff away, make them get by on what they already have while the liberals played Santa Claus and gave away the farm. No longer the truth, and no longer the truism. Conservatives not only have given us the largest deficits in history (and the biggest government), but now they want to play Daddy Government and reward their good little children with all the capital in the cookie jar.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 179
America does not have enough oil reserves to affect the price of energy or its supply. Favorable drilling leases will lead to nice profits to those companies who get to snag some of our oil to sell back to us at high prices, but it won't cut the price of gasoline.
In any case, what America needs is higher taxes on fossil fuels. We need to stop taxing people who work and start taxing people who waste. That is, cut the payroll tax, and stop frittering away so much of our scarce natural resources.
Americans need to eat healthy food, get some exercise, learn something, and work hard. We need to stop stuffing our faces with crap, sitting around watching TV and youtube, cranking the AC, buying shopping-cart loads of Chinese-made doodads, and driving SUVs back and forth.
Today the Times reported that the Republicans are giving away little gifts, like autographed photos, to rightwing loyalist posters who parrot their talking points on various blogs and message boards. I hope CinClayton and SJT1 get something nice.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
bucksavage says:
America does not have enough oil reserves to affect the price of energy or its supply.
Wrong: In the past weeks, the price of oil has been affected without one drop of oil being pumped, (its gone down), just because Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling. You fail to include in your comments the effect of "oil futures" on the price of oil. All oil is priced on a "next in, first out basis. Next in being the price of oil futures. When oil futures go down, price of oil goes down.
Favorable drilling leases will lead to nice profits to those companies who get to snag some of our oil to sell back to us at high prices, but it won't cut the price of gasoline.
Wrong: When the gap between demand and supply becomes larger, the price of oil will go down. Right now, there is such a small gap between demand and supply, that the slightest warlike statement or weather interruption has an adverse effect on oil pricing. Drilling will increase supply while we work to advance alternate energy sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind etc.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 179
I like your bold "Wrongs" ! I wish I were, and that we lived in Candyland, where we could all just drive around in SUVs listening to the Archies, occasionally stopping for a Ben and Jerry's waffle cone.
All that speculation has only short-term effects on the price of oil. The price will go up and then down; some will make a nice chunk of change. Some will get hosed. But in the long run, adding a few drops to a gushing spigot will not have much of an effect.
You are right about the narrow gap between supply and demand. The producers, both foreign nations and our own corporations, know that too. That's why they are keeping the gap tight. Oil won't flow forever, and they might as well make every dollar (or Euro) that they can. Who can blame them? If we add a few drops now, do you really think Iran and Venezuela will let the price drop back?
You are also right about the need to work to advance alternate energy sources. But you forgot to mention just using less. We have set our lifestyles up to just waste and waste, and now we are complaining. Remember that spoiled girl in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," who whined "I want an Oompa Loompa now, Daddy!" We need to stop crying for big government to bring back the days of cheap oil.
With only five posts, you're a long way from earning a ride on the "Straight Talk Express." But good luck with that.