Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 75 of 75

Thread: Terrorists Attack US Soil AGAIN !

  1. #51
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    When one political party takes in 80% of the donations from the oil industry it’s safe to assume Big Oil’s interests are being looked after by that party. Consider this the next time you hear one party championing more drilling and higher oil company profits: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E01 or McCain
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

    That article posted above contains several misleading
    assumptions.
    1.Despite the vague questions and assertions in the first two paragraphs Obama’s plan offers concrete specifics. The Windfall tax would only be levied against the top grossing oil companies and only if oil exceeded $90 per barrel thereby giving any company an incentive to keep the price low.

    2.None of the revenue from the windfall tax would go to “stimulus” checks. In fact, Obama has not advocated for any future stimulus checks than the ones passed in April. Obama’s plan calls for $150 billion in revenue over the next 10 years to be directed at renewable energy research and foreign oil independence. Since the energy companies have shown no ability to develop alternative technologies themselves there is no other way to force energy independence from foreign oil fast enough than through publically funded research.

    3.The $64.7 billion the article cited as taxes paid does not count the $14 billion they received in tax breaks and subsidies. How can anyone justify subsidising an industry so royally screwing those that work for a living.

    4.The focus on the percentage of profit is misleading. The revenue of Exxon almost DOUBLED from the same quarter last year. Of course you're going to be taxed more when your revenue goes up so drastically.

    5.The comparison to GE, tech companies, and other industries is ridiculous for one very important reason. The oil industry doubled their revenue, but created very few new jobs. Companies like GE especially expand their workforce in similar rates as their revenue expands. As I pointed out earlier, and Dion mentioned, the oil industry has a unique impact on the national security and economic security of our nation, so they are subject to increased safeguards.

    The mark of a fool is to do the same thing and expect different results. Unless we change something that will have a substantial impact nothing is going to change at the pump. The same old rhetoric of trust the oil companies, they'll do the right thing, isn't working anymore.
    Wow :roll: - direct from the hyper-partisan playbook.

    In the order you detailed them:

    1. What are the concrete specifics you allude to? What net income % is considered a windfall? How many of the "top grossing" - one? two? all of them? top 5? It's vague. Even your attempt to clarify is murky as pond water.

    2. You are wrong. Your favorite site must not have updated yet - but Barack's is. Direct from Obama's site (underlines added by me):

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...updates/gG5klN
    Senator Obama today unveiled an Emergency Economic Plan, following news of rising unemployment and a struggling economy. The proposed plan would take the excess profits of oil companies to help working families deal with energy costs in the form of new $1,000 rebate checks, and would enact a $50 billion economic stimulus package to jump-start job creation and help local communities that are struggling due to our economic downturn.
    3. So the government is up by $50B. Fine. They're still up by $50B. And I agree - let's get rid of the subsidies... but let's be fair about it. Let's cut subsidies for farmers too - they're earning record $$ recently with the uptick in the price of grains, etc. No one seems to be complaining about that though - other than to erroneously blame it on the Oil companies.

    4. The focus on the percentage is NOT misleading. Focusing on the flat dollar value is - which is precisely why that's the only number being reported in the media. Revenue doubling has NOTHING to do with taxes - businesses are not taxed on revenue (in fact - if you've got a basic understanding of economics you realize that businesses are NOT taxed at all - the consumer is via pass-through of costs, but that's another discussion). Focusing on the percentage illustrates that while revenues increased - so did associated costs. You want to understand the numbers a bit deeper - go look at the year on year progression of the gross profit margin - that's total production costs (no write downs or large CEO salaries included, nor is exploration included) divided by total revenues. When it stays flat - then the company is merely passing along increased costs incurred. Which is exactly what will happen with any windfall profit tax - it will add $$ at the pump.

    5. This is not ridiculous. The creation of few jobs is true - but points to increased material costs as the primary driver, which is supported by the fact that production dropped. When GE or others increase revenue - typically it follows a growth in business volume (i.e. production). The reason Exxon's stock took a beating when they announced the #'s is b/c the investors understand that the outlook of lower production is not a good trend - and that the increased revenues are not the result of increased volume or efficiency and didn't translate to better returns.

    The mark of a fool is someone who speaks as though he/she is an expert on a subject of which they know nothing. The mark of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results (longstanding Deming quote). You're clearly no fool, nor insane - but please, go easy on the partisan propoganda. Keep that stuff for the Dungeon. And bone up on your economics.

    And one last thing. The Oil & Gas industry donated roughly $18.5M so far this year. You are correct that ~80% (76% if you'd like to be accurate) went to Republicans. Attoney's and Law firms have donated almost an order of magnitude more ($142.6M) in the same period to democrats by the same proportion (75% to dems). So we're beating up the bad oil companies for putting republicans in their pocket while the lawyers make sure the democrats are in their pocket 10x - to drive more complex laws and regulations to ensure that they continue some true windfall profits due to the increase in litigation, etc. Wonderful. Not too politically expedient to point out though - is it?

  2. #52
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    481
    Look at the energy industry’s political donations that I posted. You’re right, this IS a very partisan issue, I know motorsports is a really conservative sect, but C’mon, where else can we argue about politics until we’re blue in the face but on the interweb?

    1.So your only question is which oil company is defined as reaping windfall profits? Are you afraid this is going to put to large a burden on the mom and pop oil companies pumping oil out of their backyards? :lol: The windfall would be dictated by the price of oil, not % of net income as I already stated.

    2.The Congressional Research Service has concluded: “[T]o the extent that a surtax on the corporate income of crude oil producers on their upstream operations could approximate such a [pure corporate profits] tax, this would not raise crude oil prices and would not increase petroleum imports in the short run. While the current corporate income tax is not a pure corporate profits tax, a surtax for oil companies would arguably be an administratively simple and economically effective way to capture estimated oil windfalls in the short run.” [Emphasis added, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06, p. 32.]

    We can argue about the term your want to refer to it as, but the “stimulus” is part of a permentant tax rebate, not a simple handout. It’s the equivalent of a tax cut, not an entitlement. From Obama’s site: “This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.” That article WAS mislead as it implied a handout.

    3.You honestly believe that of doubling of revenue will have no effect on the profits of a company as large as Exxon or its tax base? The past decade in the oil industry has proven that exact correlation correct. Passing on the costs of corporate tax is debatable. The CBO recently concluded that reducing the federal gas tax or the subsidies to oil companies directly would have a negligible effect on the price of oil because the industry would not pass the benefits onto consumers when they’re making out like robber barons already. As I posted above many experts conclude the opposite is true as well, that a windfall profits tax would not be passed onto consumers at the pumps.

    4.The outlook of lower production is the fault of a shortsighted energy industry. They concluded that through their support of Republicans they could count on increased access to drilling whenever demand increased beyond their capacity. This has led to little investment in alternative technologies or any long term solutions. This is exactly why a different solution is necessary because the energy industry will never find one on their own.

    5.Your numbers regarding political donations are way off and seem to ignore an obvious fact. The oil industry has given $18 million in federal contributions (not including PAC and Lobbyists and state contributions) contributions through the last FEC reporting period on June 30th while lawyers gave $83 million in total donations. Note: Lawyers are the second largest group supporting Republicans. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php You seem to forget there are only a few thousand oil executives (at most) in the US while there are 1.2 million practicing lawyers. Remember, corporate donations are illegal, so it comes down to individuals. Given that the oil industry’s influence is still vastly disproportionate to their numbers. Finally, lawyers are not the ones I’m feeling the pain from every time I go to the pump or the grocery store, so stop distracting from the real issue with this red herring.

    You obviously disagree with any solutions I've offered, so what's yours? The only alternative I hear is: do more of the same, expect different results, drill, drill, drill.

    Lets hear your defense of these windfall profits: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...oil/index.html

  3. #53
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Firestone, CO
    Posts
    2,303
    ** This is a civil discussion and Im hoping will remain that way. Your views as well as all others are respected and entitled to be put here but if your comments become personal and diected toward someone personally, they are not welcome here. (No offense intended) and I realize Im not the internet police. but I dont want a great intelligent discussion like this on a topic that is so important, to be closed because someone insulted someone or their opinions. **

    Moving on;
    to adress Mr Roth's issue about him making profits on flooring and should he be hit harder? Answer = No simply for the same reason stated several times. Your company does not directly and so significantly inpact the total US economy and the lives of 99.9% of the people living in it.... There for no. If the price of your floors affected the price of milk and bread for my family, and my job or lack of having one, or the ability for my grandma to afford to buy her meds and still own a vehicle to drive to her doctor visit, then the answer would be yes.

    Subsidies; This is deffinately not an area I know much about so I will not state anything there other than Im not sure why, unless it was to assist with alternative fuel source exploration or building of additional refineries or home land extraction of our own oil. But as stated Im not an expert on the topic NO one here is, so Im simply addressing my opinions Same as everyone else.

    Gecco: So if you were to own your own country and tax the heck out of everything, would that make you a DIC ------ TATOR ? :wink:

  4. #54
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    556
    Dion:

    While I pretty much disagree with your take on windfalls, I like the fact that you put the reasons in black and white terms. I hope I didn't come off as attacking anyone, as I am enjoying this thread and try not to do that TOO much.

    Not to hijack this, but is anyone going to the DNC? I'd really enjoy reading how one of ours sees participation in this (okay not really jacking, as it's rather tightly tied in).

    Cheers!
    Fred SpongeButt Slowpants Roth
    MRA811
    I may be old, I may be slow, but..... aw rats, I'm old and slow.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    Look at the energy industry’s political donations that I posted. You’re right, this IS a very partisan issue, I know motorsports is a really conservative sect, but C’mon, where else can we argue about politics until we’re blue in the face but on the interweb?
    Fair enough - but we hear enough partisan stuff on the tv every night, it would be nice to discuss it without resorting to cookbook platform positions.

    And I won't quote the whole thing to save some space.

    1. My question is where's the line on defining "windfall profits" (in a hard # or %age) and why won't that apply to every industry? I know why - b/c it's a politicized issue that's being used to gather votes from people who believe the demonization of the oil industry without knowing/digging into the true issue. I don't think the oil folks are saints - but I don't think they should be treated differently than any other industry.

    2. "In the short run" is pretty key to that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    the “stimulus” is part of a permentant tax rebate, not a simple handout. It’s the equivalent of a tax cut, not an entitlement.
    I never said it was an entitlement, nor did the article. It's functionally the same plan that Bush had with his stimulus checks. It's a gimick - regardless of who initiates it.

    3. I didn't say that doubling revenue would have no effect on profits or tax base. I said that companies are not taxed on revenues, as you originally stated.
    Of course you're going to be taxed more when your revenue goes up so drastically.
    Example: If a company is operating on a breakeven basis - and it's primary material/cost driver (a steel mill would be a good example) doubled in price, then their output would (approximately) double in price. The market price would adjust accordingly (assuming a competitive market - like steel processing) and the company would still be breakeven. No change in profits, no change in taxes ($0 taxes in both cases), but double the revenue. Of course if a company in the same example (or Exxon) is making a profit - say 10% - and the same happens, then their profit after the related price increases would also be ~10%. The dollar value of the revenues, profits and taxes would double - but here's the kicker - so would the dollar value of the working capital needed to run the business, so the company would have to raise more capital and the return on invested capital stays the same. It's effectively a net wash... that company is no more attractive to an investor than it was before.

    And I agree - removal of the gas tax would not likely effect the price of gas, but that has little to do with the big oil companies, and more to do with an effect on supply/demand at the pump. And it's a stupid idea... McCain bungled that one for sure. I also, as I stated, agree with removal of subsidies. But again - let's get rid of them for other industries too. And while we're at it - let's cut subsidies on the arts too. That should be privately funded IMO. Science subsidies can stay - they have a real impact on our country's economic and defense positions.

    4. I mentioned the lowered production not to place blame on anyone - but to point out that the increased revenues are not based on an expanding business, which was the error in your GE parallel.

    5.
    Your numbers regarding political donations are way off
    :lol: Really? Interesting. I pulled them right from the site you linked (opensecrets.org).

    They're accurate - at least as accurate as those in your original argument. If they're inaccurate - then it's likely they're inaccurate to your benifit.

    My point in pulling in the lawyers was this - it's a matter of perspective -what the oil industry is giving to the republicans is a relatively small amount in the big picture (though the $$ values do sound big when taken by themselves), so cries of republicans being "in the pocket" are a bit disengenious. Besides, we all know who's giving to the republicans. That's no mystery. They're in the pocket of lots of corporations, and democrats are in the pocket of unions, far-left agenda orgs., and lawyers. There are regulations that require appropriate disclosure for all members of public companies. All industries that give primarily to republicans are out in the open - available for anyone who's interested to see. That's not the case with the democrats. Lawyers and law firms are (conveniently - since they wrote the law) not subject to such tranparency. At least not that I can find - I'd appreciate any sources though!

    It's also worth pointing out - again for pespective - that the Oil and Gas industry is 18th on the list of top industries donating to congress. It's also worth pointing out that the top recipients of donations from the top 20 industries are democrats 90% of the time. Again - straight from your site.

    You obviously disagree with any solutions I've offered, so what's yours? The only alternative I hear is: do more of the same, expect different results, drill, drill, drill.
    Actually I don't, b/c honestly I haven't seen many solutions from you. I'm not particularly partisan - but I am a free market guy. My proposal, on energy prices only, would be to do more than blame and punish oil companies, fund alternatives and hope. 1) I agree that regulation on oil speculators is an appropriate move - as they're more to blame here than the oil companies and frankly, they don't add much value to the supply chain. 2) I think that wind and solar should be invested in through SBIR and STTR funding channels via the DOE and other orgs. When it's developed to the point of being economically viable - it will take hold 3) I think we need to build more infrastructure around nuclear power 4) Continue to invest in technologies to clean emmissions of coal fired power plants 5) Open up some drilling - but protect the more natural, pristine areas (Ted Kennedy's view is not one of them). 6) Most importantly - and some of the above will help - we need a plan to improve the value of the dollar, something I've not heard much about - but is one of the largest contributors to the current price of oil.

    Oh, and people should properly inflate their tires. Check with your trackside vendor for the correct pressure based on conditions.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by bluedevil
    ** This is a civil discussion and Im hoping will remain that way. Your views as well as all others are respected and entitled to be put here but if your comments become personal and diected toward someone personally, they are not welcome here. (No offense intended) and I realize Im not the internet police. but I dont want a great intelligent discussion like this on a topic that is so important, to be closed because someone insulted someone or their opinions. **
    :?: Where did this come from? I haven't seen a single personal insult levied (other than calling Kang a terrorist, of course)

  7. #57
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    481
    So you're a free market guy who wants more regulation of speculators in the commodities market and more tax dollars used for investment in research through government agencies? You say tomato I say tomato, so lets move on and address something new, like your "solutions."

    Republicans in both chambers of Congress have stopped anti-speculation bills so far, and the President has threatened to veto them: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073002088.html

    Instead they want increased drilling which Bush's own Depart of Energy says will do absolutely nothing: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
    "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

    http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...815884,00.html
    "Even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production."

  8. #58
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    So you're a free market guy who wants more regulation of speculators in the commodities market and more tax dollars used for investment in research through government agencies?
    Shades of gray.

    Things are only black and white on college campuses and in politicians' offices. :wink:

  9. #59
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    lets move on and address something new, like your "solutions."

    Republicans in both chambers of Congress have stopped anti-speculation bills so far, and the President has threatened to veto them

    Instead they want increased drilling which Bush's own Depart of Energy says will do absolutely nothing

    At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production."
    I snipped out some stuff - again for size, not for my arguments.

    I don't argue that the current gov't is completely gridlocked and inept. That's on both sides of the aisle, though.

    The last statement is worth commenting on though - switching to more domestic production may not impact world prices, but it would impact the value of the dollar - and that would have an impact on the price we pay for oil. So there is some merit to the idea.

    And I must've missed it - where did you say what your plan is?

  10. #60
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,876
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Things are only black and white on college campuses and in politicians' offices. :wink:
    Man, isn't that the truth....
    The GECCO

    You begin your racing career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

  11. #61
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    I keep telling my wife "I speak the truth!" but somehow she's not buying it... at least now I can tell her that Glen agrees. Maybe that'll carry more weight.

    :lol:

  12. #62
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    switching to more domestic production may not impact world prices, but it would impact the value of the dollar - and that would have an impact on the price we pay for oil. So there is some merit to the idea.
    That's a misnomer as well. As I substantiated above any increased domestic production would not be seen for 10+ years, so the effect on the dollar would not happen for a decade at least. Any predicted effect on such a long term is speculatory at best.

    As for the actual impact you may not be considering the greater effect that conservation and research would have on the dollar. If instead of investing in new domestic production we invested in renewable and green technology development we would have innovative technologies to sell to the rest of the world, the value of which would far exceed the value of our oil.

  13. #63
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    switching to more domestic production may not impact world prices, but it would impact the value of the dollar - and that would have an impact on the price we pay for oil. So there is some merit to the idea.
    That's a misnomer as well. As I substantiated above any increased domestic production would not be seen for 10+ years, so the effect on the dollar would not happen for a decade at least. Any predicted effect on such a long term is speculatory at best.
    A misnomer? Hardly - not even in the definition.

    And while the 10 year number is debated - I'll give it you, cause I'm a nice guy and b/c I don't need it. Let's accept that it'll take 10 years before we see a rise in production. Better 10 years than never, which is the never explicitly stated option. And - as I'm sure you know - the price of oil is not only set by pure supply/demand, but also by anticipated future supply and demand (even if speculators are regulated, they won't be erradicated - nor should they be, the futures market is an important lever in stabilizing prices), so the effects would be seen much sooner than 10 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    As for the actual impact you may not be considering the greater effect that conservation and research would have on the dollar. If instead of investing in new domestic production we invested in renewable and green technology development we would have innovative technologies to sell to the rest of the world, the value of which would far exceed the value of our oil.
    Really? Greater than the value of oil? Far exceeding? I hadn't heard that - perhaps you could site specifics (and please - not from a far-left blog) preferably from an industry source?

    Like I said - I'm all for alternatives - but only if they're economically viable. There's not a lot of market elasticity in energy delivery - so real impetus has to be there for the consumer to switch. The current gas prices are starting things - and I'm well aware that those who push only solar/wind actually prefer high gas prices b/c it moves the consumer faster in their direction, regardless of the effect on the economy. Any initiatives to reduce the price of gas only lessens demand for solar/wind - hence the current democratic agenda.

    Problem is - there's no basis for claiming that wind and solar are on the right part of the technology curve to be in a position to be viable in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years, that's not how technology development works. Great ideas often die b/c they come about long before the market is ready for them. Throwing billions at research may help - but it's no guarantee that we won't still need the same amount of oil in 10 years, so then where's the "no drill" policy gotten us?

    And again - what were your proposed solutions, I missed them and can't seem to find them in anything above. Am I to assume that you are a pure party player and don't have a single position of your own?

  14. #64
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Am I to assume that you are a pure party player and don't have a single position of your own?
    Yes.

    It is much easier to burp up popular opinion than research your own.
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  15. #65
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by MotoSix
    Yes.

    It is much easier to burp up popular opinion than research your own.
    Well, I've got to give him credit - he's certainly well researched on the party platform.

    You're not actually reading all this - are you?

  16. #66
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Quote Originally Posted by MotoSix
    Yes.

    It is much easier to burp up popular opinion than research your own.
    Well, I've got to give him credit - he's certainly well researched on the party platform.

    You're not actually reading all this - are you?
    Absolutely.
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  17. #67
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff
    but it's no guarantee that we won't still need the same amount of oil in 10 years, so then where's the "no drill" policy gotten us?
    Exactly. Even if it would take 10 years (which is not the case, but I'll stipulate for arguments sake), that's not a reason to not do it now, that's the reason it should have been done 10 years ago.
    The GECCO

    You begin your racing career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

  18. #68
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by The GECCO
    that's the reason it should have been done 10 years ago.
    Indeed, it's all Bush's fault.

    Wait-a-minute... who was in office 10 years ago again? Maybe we should blame him.

  19. #69
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    481
    haha, do you know who placed the inital ban on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf? It was that tree hugging liberal President George HW Bush. How again is this Clinton's fault?

    (working on a reply to your earlier post, but don't have time right now)

  20. #70
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
    haha, do you know who placed the inital ban on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf? It was that tree hugging liberal President George HW Bush.
    He did that while governor of Texas? Impressive - democrats must've loved him!

    But wait - I thought he was in big-oil's pocket. Now your "republicans are all lackies for the oil industry" argument falls apart - and I wasn't even picking at it. :lol: \/

    Ah well, I'm outta here to prep for the weekend. See you on your new hybrid bike I hope!

  21. #71
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    481
    I've totally lost you. Bush 41 was never Gov. of Texas.

  22. #72
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,876
    Geoff, George HW is George W's dad. And he did place a moratorium on offshore drilling, though it was rather redundant. See, there were TWO federal bans on offshore drilling - executive (by the President) and legislative (by the Congress). The Congressional ban has to be renewed every year, and it has been renewed every year since it's inception in 1981. It was already well established in 1990 when Bush 41 instituted the executive ban.

    Neither is permanent. As I said, the legislative ban has to be renewed every fiscal year, meaning it will expire Sept 30th if not renewed, and the executive ban can be lifted by the current President at any time. As a matter of fact, it was already lifted on July 14th of this year. So, only the legislative ban still stands.

    The executive ban was put in place when oil was $25/barrel. Circumstances change, we need to change with them. The President already has, let's see what Congress will do...or, let's see if they will have the votes to override the inevitable VETO of their bill to renew the ban.
    The GECCO

    You begin your racing career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

  23. #73
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    481
    The point of blaming Clinton for either ban is totaally without merit though.

    There's also a third ban which is more relevant to this conversation. The proposed legislation in Congress would only remove the federal congressional ban. Almost every coastal state currently has thier own ban on offshore drilling and few to none of these will be lifted as most coastal states' populations are strongly opposed to it. For example no Gov. of FL has ever been elected without promising not to allow offshore drilling. The point is even if you guys get what you're asking for it still won't lead to anything substantial.

  24. #74
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Firestone, CO
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by The GECCO
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Things are only black and white on college campuses and in politicians' offices. :wink:
    Man, isn't that the truth....

    College campuses are the biggest racket going. Even worse than oil, but thats a different discussion. sorry for straying off topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MotoSix
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Am I to assume that you are a pure party player and don't have a single position of your own?
    Yes.

    It is much easier to burp up popular opinion than research your own.

    Sadly if you do your own research on any party, you will end up being no party ! They all suck, it usualy comes down to the lesser of 2 evils and the country is to chicken s**t to elect a 3rd party player that might actually make this country a better place.


    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828

    Indeed, it's all Bush's fault.

    Wait-a-minute... who was in office 10 years ago again? Maybe we should blame him.
    Its not 1 persons fault even though we like to blame the moron in office... its a series of events, mistakes, if you will that have got us into this position. If the Pope was in office right now as the Pres of the US, the Americans would have made him the fall guy. (NOT to say Bush doesnt suck, he does. BUT he isnt the single and only person who got us in this, however he has done a lot to intensify the effects that have been a long time coming)


    So here are some contiubutory events that may help start in the right direction (which Im sorry to say I dont think we will solve this on this discussion, but we have good times trying)

    Step 1: Get us the hell out of war. We are fighting a war and spending billions with a sad exit plan with no valid date in mind. We spend billions to repair a country sitting on $80 Billion in oil money they can use to repair their own damn country.

    Step 2: Sh*t or get off the pot in Afgan. Get Binladen or dont. so in essence I guess step 2 is also get us the hell out of war.

    Step 3: Impeach Bush for his getting us into war under false pretenses (amoug other things) cough: WMD cough: (Though I guess that would be futile anyway since by the time it occurred we would already have a new President in office)

    Step 4: (Better foreign policy) Mind own own damn business. We have our nose is so many others business, we dont even know what the hell we are doing in our country. stop spending money to fix other countries and lets spend a little to fix our own.

    Step 5: Thats pretty much where we are in this discussion: Lower oil prices? Have more or less Gov involvement in gas and oil price and policy? Drill more or less? on our own soil or buy from others? Free market (on oil) or not? Find alternative sources for fuel or keep head in sand and drill drill drill? At this point I will add in my apparently infamous ... because this really is an ongoing thought or process............ :wink:

  25. #75
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by The GECCO
    Geoff, George HW is George W's dad.
    D'oh! ops: if I'd stopped to read... I'd've seen the H

    I knew W lifted the exec ban - didn't know he did/didn't put it in place and was just playin' with cu360 for missing the "if we'd done something 10 years ago" tongue in cheek.

    8)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. New set Conti-Race Attack 120/190 soft slicks - $250
    By Young Luke in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 17th, 2013, 03:37 PM
  2. ATTACK OF THE NINJA's - CRA at Brainerd - September 23 - 25!
    By T Baggins in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 14th, 2011, 08:57 AM
  3. 07-09 ATTACK KAWASAKI'S FOR SALE!! MRA HOOK UP!!
    By gyrtr1 in forum Bikes For Sale
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 06:41 PM
  4. Attack rearsets
    By R1-2NV in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 13th, 2010, 10:12 AM
  5. Attack Triple Clamps - MUST SELL
    By specialk in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 17th, 2009, 03:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •