Bush to urge Congress to allow offshore drilling

A1ACharles Sees Hypocrisy wrote:

<quoted text>
He saved millions of barrels of oil. Didnt have to go crazy with some "drill now, drill now" mantra either.

Cowboyup wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said having options is great, but economies are not built on these smaller industries.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Au contraire. This country was built on "these smaller industries. That's what made "true" competition work. It's been the influence of these mega corporations that has turned "competition" into a misnomer.
As it concerns the oil industry we can go all the way back to John D. Rockefeller who tried so hard to nullify the laws and regulations that made it possible for smaller companies to exist. And in many ways he succeeded and set the stage for ALL larger companies to annihilate the smaller companies and make it near impossible for ground level companies to start up, much less flourish.
So I strongly disagree with "but economies are not built on these smaller industries".

Cowboyup wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay then with all the advances in the alternative technologies, why is our economy still being hit hard by rising fuel costs, it is because no matter how perfect the alternative sources are, we are still an oil based country and economy, the only way to fix the energy situation and economy is through more of our own oil being produced and used in our country. You can't and certainly won't be able to power huge cities with wind or solar power alone, you still need the energy that is supplied through oil driven generators to provide the vast amount of power to these areas. Smaller towns, sure they can be made to provide a greater portion of the energy supply through alternative sources, but to say we eliminate something that is not only proven, but can have huge positive impacts on our economy is just plain ignorant.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
"Nancy Pelosi will probably go down in history as the greatest enemy-from-within this country has ever had. As bad as Bush's ratings are, the Democratic Congress' is even worse, and Nancy Pelosi scrapes the bottom of the barrel."
She would run a huge distant second to Bush if you want to classify her that way. And one of the reasons Congress has got such a horrible rating, lower than Bush, is because the American people look to someone to rid us this catastrophe of Bush and they can't do much of anything at all unless he, Bush, signs it as President. If he doesn't like it, the good of the country be damned, he vetoes.
It's working really great for Bush because now he can get even more partisan transference onto it being someone else's "fault".

Robert Newell wrote:

<quoted text>
How did he save millions of barrel of oil?

Jeff - an Independent wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously, Congress has dug their own grave by not paying attention to such things as the economy, the weakening dollar, and energy independence. They would rather blow taxpayer's money on bailouts for dumb/greedy people, earmark spending that doesn't benefit the taxpayers, attempt to enact Cap and Trade bullcrap (another tax grab), point fingers at each other, and go on vacation.
Exactly what has Congress solved? Not a darn thing. That goes for both DEMs and REPs, the whole lot needs to get fired.

Robert Newell wrote:

<quoted text>
I read a lot of your post , and seems we agree on just about everything. I just wanted to point something out. Oil only supplies about 3% of US electricity. Hydro Electric about 6.6% and other renewables 2.8%. This is from 2004 data and since then, I think we have nearly doubled the amount of wind. We need to continue this trend, but also increase domestic drilling. We also need to do things such as run hyrdo electric plants and wind farms at full capacity even at non peak times and store the energy as hydrogen. This hydrogen from hydro electric plants can be transported for use in other ways and from wind farms be used to generate electricity when the wind power is low.

A1ACharles Sees Hypocrisy wrote:

<quoted text>
Google it

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
I just love it. The ironic humor of it all is ALMOST side splitting. All we hear from the capitalistic right is how we need to give tax breaks to eliminating taxes on companies so they have an incentive to produce along with all the other "incentives" business needs to produce. Yet you knock "Your Visionary may have been able to state the obvious. His solution: have the gubbermint run research, give gubbermint payouts for solar panels, create gubbermint programs that yielded NOTHING but sucked up billions."
So just what does it take to get business to become productive? I totally agree with you that EVERY tax break the "gubberment" has given, all the "gubberment" incentive programs for business "create(ed) gubbermint programs that yielded NOTHING but sucked up billions."
So how is it that the "Visionary" was wrong when Reagan came along and dismantled it all in favor of turning all back over to the oil companies. How that then becomes the fault of the "Visionary" is beyond me.

Cowboyup wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah sure I don't think there is any oil here, but if there was, I say go ahead and drill, what is the harm?

Robert Newell wrote:

<quoted text>All I found was this:
President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis.
In late 1978, the beginning of the Iranian revolution caused a shortfall in oil exports, and prices doubled over the next couple of years. Carter, wearing a sweater on national television, urged Americans to turn down their thermostats. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977—never," Carter declared in his nationally televised speech on July 15, 1979.
He proposed a sweeping $142 billion energy plan which would achieve energy independence by 1990. Part of his plan included the "creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000." Carter imposed an import quota of 8.5 million barrels of oil per day and created the $20 billion Synfuels program, which was supposed to produce 2.5 million barrels of synthetic fuels per day by 1990. To his credit, Carter did begin to dismantle Nixon's crude oil price controls.(Auto aside: In his 1979 speech Carter warned: Citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.)
Doesn't say how he saved us millions of barrels of oil as you claim. It might be easier if you just told me, since it seems to be a national secret.

Stoneman wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that tax "breaks" should not exist for any citizen or company. The tax burden should be evenly applied to all. Giving tax loopholes to corporations AND citizens is a classic method for political corruption-- something Democrats AND Republicans are very familiar with.
But taxing corporations, particularly monopolies or near monopolies, doesn't work either. They simply pass the tax through to the consumer. They have no trouble passing along the increase in the price of crude oil, closed refineries, or whatever-- so passing along your vindictive "profit tax" on oil companies will be just as easy.
But you lefties will feel so vindicated. You really stuck it to those big, bad corporations.
Your solution is what, have gubbermint run the oil business? Or maybe just have the gubbermint dictate how much profit (if any) they get?
That'll work. Yeah.
You are aware that oil companies made 6.7% ROI last year, right? There are lots of companies making well over 10%, but because you have an ax to grind with oil corporations THEY need to be penalized.
You're not making much sense.

Stoneman wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that tax "breaks" should not exist for any citizen or company. The tax burden should be evenly applied to all. Giving tax loopholes to corporations AND citizens is a classic method for political corruption-- something Democrats AND Republicans are very familiar with.
But taxing corporations, particularly monopolies or near monopolies, doesn't work either. They simply pass the tax through to the consumer. They have no trouble passing along the increase in the price of crude oil, closed refineries, or whatever-- so passing along your vindictive "profit tax" on oil companies will be just as easy.
But you lefties will feel so vindicated. You really stuck it to those big, bad corporations.
Your solution is what, have gubbermint run the oil business? Or maybe just have the gubbermint dictate how much profit (if any) they get?
That'll work. Yeah.
You are aware that oil companies made 6.7% ROI last year, right? There are lots of companies making well over 10%, but because you have an ax to grind with oil corporations THEY need to be penalized.
You're not making much sense.

sneaky pete wrote:

<quoted text>Sure why not, after all Hawaii doesn't depend on tourism in the least for it's economic well being. Good point. How do you think the off shore drilling thing is going to go in the GREAT state of CA? Probably not the way Mr. McSame would like.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
"You are aware that oil companies made 6.7% ROI last year, right?"
And I'm reasonably sure the BILLIONS they've gotten in tax breaks isn't figured into that ROI figure either.
Along with the not figuring in that the consumers paid ALL OF THOSE COMPANIES TAXES because they were passed onto the consumers.
There's a LOT MORE profit hidden behind those curtains.

Stoneman wrote:

<quoted text>
According to their 2nd quarterly report, Exxon paid $32,361,000,000 in taxes. Effectively a 49% tax rate.
That's just ONE QUARTER of a year.
Figure they keep paying the same amount for the rest of the year, that comes to $129,444,000,000.
IN TAXES. Which, of course, they have to put into the price of their product.
Where's the big tax break, bonehead?