Pages: 1 2

 

2008-06-18 14:29:32
stratozyck
Member
+35|7054
I don't like Bush very much, but why the hell are the Democrats so dead set against offshore drilling? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_ … fshore_oil

Yes, I'm aware of all the crap going on about who's to blame for oil prices - I don't care.  Drill more now! 

I'm sick and tired of people with their idiotic theories as to why gas prices are so high.  My qualification?  Masters, Economics.  Still, even a high school student should know more supply will help prices go down!  YET THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONSISTENTLY AGAINST MORE SUPPLY.  Instead, they want "conservation" which has never, ever, ever, worked unless you want to severely cripple the economy (consumption went down in the 1930's).

The Democrats' actions are inexcusable.  The only thing worse than Republicans are Democrats. 

I am so sick of lawyers running this country...

Had to edit to say, there are Repubs against drilling too. 

Throw them all out!  "Do you want to drill" should be the new litmus test for politicians.

Last edited by stratozyck (2008-06-18 14:31:37)

2008-06-18 14:41:15
chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

That's right. Let's forget about those guys who started an unjust war resulting in the deaths of thousands. Let's focus on people who won't vote for offshore drilling, which in ten years might get us some relief from gas prices.


Are people really such sheep that we'll get infuriated over pipe dreams? Imagine getting so upset over something that will probably not even help that much. You should read your own article better:

Yahoo News wrote:

Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem. The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil.

Yahoo News wrote:

Oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed.

Yahoo News wrote:

Bush ... acknowledged that his new proposals would take years to have a full effect.

Last edited by chittydog (2008-06-18 14:43:29)

2008-06-18 14:42:01
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7144|Eastern PA

stratozyck wrote:

I don't like Bush very much, but why the hell are the Democrats so dead set against offshore drilling? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_ … fshore_oil

Yes, I'm aware of all the crap going on about who's to blame for oil prices - I don't care.  Drill more now! 

I'm sick and tired of people with their idiotic theories as to why gas prices are so high.  My qualification?  Masters, Economics.  Still, even a high school student should know more supply will help prices go down!  YET THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONSISTENTLY AGAINST MORE SUPPLY.  Instead, they want "conservation" which has never, ever, ever, worked unless you want to severely cripple the economy (consumption went down in the 1930's).

The Democrats' actions are inexcusable.  The only thing worse than Republicans are Democrats. 

I am so sick of lawyers running this country...
Nice qualifications DUDE ON INTERNET.

Anywhoos, from your article:
Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed.
and
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida. What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress has to act first and then he would follow behind.

Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said: "He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it in tandem."
To which I would add, why doesn't Bush simply rescind the Executive Orders? It's clearly under his power to do so and he's shown throughout his presidency that he really doesn't care what congress has to say (ex. signing statements that ignore laws passed by Congress) and has done whatever the fuck.

This seems more like an electoral ploy than anything. Incumbents and McCain can clutch their pearls and blame Democrats for high oil prices when in reality the President could simply act to authorize drilling.

Bullshit politics, pure and simple.
2008-06-18 14:46:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

The whole nation should have been looking at other ways to fuel this country after the Arab oil embargo. Reagan, Carter, Clinton, GW sr.. take your pick. This isn't a Dem exclusive.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 14:46:54
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7158|Salt Lake City

Offshore drilling isn't something you just set up overnight.  It would take years to get any meaningful amount of oil from offshore drilling.  I wouldn't be totally opposed to drilling offshore, but there are things I would expect before I would approve it if I were in government.

1. The strictest environmental standards must be maintained at the drilling site.
2. Additional fuel mileage increases from automakers.
3. Substantially higher "Gas Guzzler" taxes.
4. Increased spending on alternative fuel sources.
5. Gas should not become excessively cheap again.
2008-06-18 14:50:38
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

5. Gas should not become excessively cheap again.
Thats like saying food shouldn't be cheap again. 30 percent of the gas used in this country involves the transit of food.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 15:04:01
stratozyck
Member
+35|7054
Notice I said, "I don't like Repubs much." 

I was specifically mentioning oil and you bring up Iraq?  I'm against the whole mess, but thats really irrelevant.  As I recall, the Democrats had a chance to stand up against Iraq but didn't put up much opposition. 

Do you want me to post a picture of me holding my degree? 

North America has far more oil potential than you would think - Canada has an extremely large amount of oil shale that can be turned into gasoline.  Also, coal can be turned into gas (the Germans were forced to do this at the end of WWII).

I do agree that gas shouldn't be under a dollar like it was before.  I think regulations on car sizes and engine performance would do some good. 

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but don't doubt my degree... I spent so much money and time obtaining it.

As for the territory they are already allowed to explore - my guess would be thats the expensive stuff to get to.  You would be surprised at how much oil there is in the world - but a lot of it is really tough to get to. 

I don't think drilling will make the price go down a whole lot, but we should be doing anything and everything we can.  It is only going to get worse as more Chinese and Indians start buying cars. 

Of course it would take years for it to have an effect.  But for it to have an effect, we must get the ball rolling ASAP.  I am aware McCain voted against ANWAR.  He has since "flip flopped" and is not for it.  Whatever, I don't care who OK's drilling, as long as someone does. 

If the price of gas goes up more, it will have huge consequences.  Our entire suburb model is built on relatively cheap transportation.  If transportation costs continue to go up, it will cause suburbs to wilt, the housing market their to plummet, and a flight to the cities.  It is not my job to say if this is desirable or not, only to say that it will cause that. 

My prediction:  Obama will get in, get his silly "windfall tax" on the oil companies, and then when gas goes up to 6/gallon he will get stomped in 2012.   I actually like some aspects of Obama, just some of his policies are downright economic suicide. 

I get the feeling most people that post on here are teens, why do I bother?  Oh yeah... I'm extremely bored.  If any of you are going to Auburn and taking Economics classes, I'm going to make you pay with extra homework (just kidding that would get me fired).
2008-06-18 15:06:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina
I can sympathize.  I favor more drilling and building more refineries, but I also favor regulating oil speculation more.  Closing the Enron loophole will do more immediate good in lowering gas prices than drilling will.  Thankfully, there is bipartisan support for closing this loophole.
2008-06-18 15:14:31
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6779|CA, USA
i agree with Turquoise on the speculation bit.  that will likely do more to lessen the prices in the short term.

long term, we should be doing more to secure our own destiny with energy.  this involves conservation as ONE aspect and NOT THE ONLY aspect.  it also involves drilling locally so we can relieve ourselves from dependency on oil from our enemies and development on alternative sources (namely nuke, wind, solar, hydro).  the eco lobby needs to compromise a bit more - they prevent alot of the alternative things from going through actually.  eg:  wind power kills birds who fly through the turbines.  hydro kills fish.  at what point should we just say 'too bad' and move on with a real solution?
2008-06-18 15:18:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina
Good points, Captain (I feel like Worf saying that...  lol).  One thing that tends to work in getting companies to invest in cleaner alternatives to oil and coal involves mandating them to devote some of their resources to it.  For example, Duke Energy (my local power provider) has signed an agreement with my state to provide a good portion of their power with non-fossil fuel sources.  So far, they've put together a massive solar panel array to match this agreement.  I think it's a great initiative.
2008-06-18 15:23:10
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6765|tropical regions of london

Masques wrote:

oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed.
2008-06-18 15:23:43
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

Kmarion wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

5. Gas should not become excessively cheap again.
Thats like saying food shouldn't be cheap again. 30 percent of the gas used in this country involves the transit of food.
Come to the UK, you won't believe what we pay for food.  It's a total con and it's not like you can tell the retailers to go fuck themselves either.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-06-18 15:25:45
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

stratozyck wrote:

blah blah oil blah blah offshore blah blah.
Why don't you post a scan of your actual degree rather than a pic of you holding up a plastic tube with a fancy ribbon wrapped around it like we have to in the UK....

Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-18 15:29:41)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-06-18 15:27:09
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6765|tropical regions of london
not a bad idea. you could black out your name.
2008-06-18 15:29:51
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6779|CA, USA
i wish that the solar panels themselves would be more efficient.  right now they are less than 20 or 30% efficient i believe.  also this is quite an expensive proposition.  out here in CA, we can have these panels installed on our roof.  about 400 square feet would be enough for a 2000 or 2500 square foot home.  this doesn't actually sound like alot of sq footage BUT the cost is actually quite a bit.  that little bit costs about 40k to have installed.  to recoup your investment, you'd need about 20-30 years and that's actually the lifetime of the unit.  so i'm not sure it's very cost effective at this time - even though it sounds great!  supposedly you can even send the excess power back to the power company as a credit and this helps the grid.

i'm already seeing some solar use on the highways around here too - they use them to help power traffic signals and call boxes on the freeways in some parts.

so if we can improve the efficiency of these panels, that means we'd have less panels to install and that would mean less $$$ to the consumer for installation costs.  this is a grass roots way of building more power plants - which we can't really do in CA because of the ECO lobby.
2008-06-18 15:31:40
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6765|tropical regions of london
you know the electric companies pay you if your property is generating more electricity than they are sending you.
2008-06-18 15:33:00
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6779|CA, USA

m3thod wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

5. Gas should not become excessively cheap again.
Thats like saying food shouldn't be cheap again. 30 percent of the gas used in this country involves the transit of food.
Come to the UK, you won't believe what we pay for food.  It's a total con and it's not like you can tell the retailers to go fuck themselves either.
english food recipe (all of them):  boil everything.  if it has taste, boil it some more.

kidding aside, why are your food prices so high?  land costs?  unions?  fuel costs?  taxes?  i can understand why for example beef is very expensive in japan since they don't have alot of land for cattle.  do you have similar issues in UK?

perhaps you should be thankful you don't have plentiful cheap food - you'd be fat like us americans. 
2008-06-18 15:34:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

i wish that the solar panels themselves would be more efficient.  right now they are less than 20 or 30% efficient i believe.  also this is quite an expensive proposition.  out here in CA, we can have these panels installed on our roof.  about 400 square feet would be enough for a 2000 or 2500 square foot home.  this doesn't actually sound like alot of sq footage BUT the cost is actually quite a bit.  that little bit costs about 40k to have installed.  to recoup your investment, you'd need about 20-30 years and that's actually the lifetime of the unit.  so i'm not sure it's very cost effective at this time - even though it sounds great!  supposedly you can even send the excess power back to the power company as a credit and this helps the grid.

i'm already seeing some solar use on the highways around here too - they use them to help power traffic signals and call boxes on the freeways in some parts.

so if we can improve the efficiency of these panels, that means we'd have less panels to install and that would mean less $$$ to the consumer for installation costs.  this is a grass roots way of building more power plants - which we can't really do in CA because of the ECO lobby.
If we gave major tax deductions to companies researching and producing panels, I guarantee that the cost would come down very quickly and the efficiency would rise dramatically.
2008-06-18 15:48:05
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Fmarion wrote:

That's like saying food shouldn't be cheap again. 30 percent of the gas used in this country involves the transit of food.
Come to the UK, you won't believe what we pay for food.  It's a total con and it's not like you can tell the retailers to go fuck themselves either.
English food recipe (all of them):  boil everything.  if it has taste, boil it some more.

kidding aside, why are your food prices so high?  land costs?  unions?  fuel costs?  taxes?  i can understand why for example beef is very expensive in japan since they don't have a lot of land for cattle.  do you have similar issues in UK?

perhaps you should be thankful you don't have plentiful cheap food - you'd be fat like us Americans. 
nah English food = if it's in the ground dig it out and if you can't boil it, fry it, if you cant fry it roast it.

Lots of reason why our food is a con,

1.  It's always been a con in the UK (you'd laugh at our portions although maybe that's a good thing to battle obesity!)
2.  Oil prices, India, China, US Ethanol Production, Drought in Aus, Bad grain harvest in Canada this article sums it up. The telegraph is a Tory leaning rag but its credible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … asket.html

Beef is costly in Japan cos they feed the cattle beer and give em massages!!  Apparently Kobe Beef melts in your mouth....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_beef

Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-18 15:48:45)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-06-18 15:49:39
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

m3thod wrote:

stratozyck wrote:

blah blah oil blah blah offshore blah blah.
Why don't you post a scan of your actual degree rather than a pic of you holding up a plastic tube with a fancy ribbon wrapped around it like we have to in the UK....
Yea but you make more..lol. Stupid inflation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-18 18:29:19
SoC./Omega
Member
+122|6963|Omaha, Nebraska!
I hate them too...

2008-06-19 07:58:09
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6947|South Florida

stratozyck wrote:

I don't like Bush very much, but why the hell are the Democrats so dead set against offshore drilling? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_ … fshore_oil

Yes, I'm aware of all the crap going on about who's to blame for oil prices - I don't care.  Drill more now! 

I'm sick and tired of people with their idiotic theories as to why gas prices are so high.  My qualification?  Masters, Economics.  Still, even a high school student should know more supply will help prices go down!  YET THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONSISTENTLY AGAINST MORE SUPPLY.  Instead, they want "conservation" which has never, ever, ever, worked unless you want to severely cripple the economy (consumption went down in the 1930's).

The Democrats' actions are inexcusable.  The only thing worse than Republicans are Democrats. 

I am so sick of lawyers running this country...

Had to edit to say, there are Repubs against drilling too. 

Throw them all out!  "Do you want to drill" should be the new litmus test for politicians.
Theres more oil on U.S. land in reserves that are undrillable than in the middle easy combined. Fact. (wish i could find the source)
15 more years! 15 more years!
2008-06-19 11:48:48
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California
I believe Congress (DEMS) are attempting to nationalize oil companies so as to govern them and put their greed in check.  This is considered a very socialistic move by the right, and I agree...but I have no problem with it...since as the RIGHT would easily agree, fuel is a national interest to be protected.  Such a national interest should supersede the capitalistic protections of greed and insane profits at the expense of a floundering public and economy. 

I'm not DEM and I'm moreso not REP..i hate both the idea of governing everything (real socialism and big government) and the free reign of capitalism at the expense of our economy and the average Joe barely making ends meet.  But in this case, I'll side with the socialists since we've seen 8 years of capitalistic greed run amok.
2008-06-19 14:39:17
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

Mitch wrote:

stratozyck wrote:

I don't like Bush very much, but why the hell are the Democrats so dead set against offshore drilling? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_ … fshore_oil

Yes, I'm aware of all the crap going on about who's to blame for oil prices - I don't care.  Drill more now! 

I'm sick and tired of people with their idiotic theories as to why gas prices are so high.  My qualification?  Masters, Economics.  Still, even a high school student should know more supply will help prices go down!  YET THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONSISTENTLY AGAINST MORE SUPPLY.  Instead, they want "conservation" which has never, ever, ever, worked unless you want to severely cripple the economy (consumption went down in the 1930's).

The Democrats' actions are inexcusable.  The only thing worse than Republicans are Democrats. 

I am so sick of lawyers running this country...

Had to edit to say, there are Repubs against drilling too. 

Throw them all out!  "Do you want to drill" should be the new litmus test for politicians.
Theres more oil on U.S. land in reserves that are undrillable than in the middle easy combined. Fact. (wish i could find the source)
Well that was a pointless post. See analogy.

I live in a country that has the most sexy bitches in the whole wide universe.  Fact.  But i wont ever get to shag any of them.  Ever.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-06-19 18:46:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina

IRONCHEF wrote:

I believe Congress (DEMS) are attempting to nationalize oil companies so as to govern them and put their greed in check.  This is considered a very socialistic move by the right, and I agree...but I have no problem with it...since as the RIGHT would easily agree, fuel is a national interest to be protected.  Such a national interest should supersede the capitalistic protections of greed and insane profits at the expense of a floundering public and economy. 

I'm not DEM and I'm moreso not REP..i hate both the idea of governing everything (real socialism and big government) and the free reign of capitalism at the expense of our economy and the average Joe barely making ends meet.  But in this case, I'll side with the socialists since we've seen 8 years of capitalistic greed run amok.
I think we can agree that oil companies are greedy as fuck, but socialization is NOT the answer.  If you want evidence why...  look at how corrupt the National Oil Companies are in the Middle East.

The solution is regulating oil speculation.  Aside from more drilling and building more refineries, there's really no need to do anything drastic like socializing oil.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard