OK, Alex, I'll take energy for 200 please.
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and Cheney were so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have started shortly after 2001.
The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for energy and it's impact on the world economy.
Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil person's mentality to address the problem.
Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a leader.
Drill baby drill was their solution.
There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it is simply not going to happen.
We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in extracting, to solve the problem.
BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation. Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline, but they did on everything else.
That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500 lb drum of epoxy lately?)
There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4% of the population), is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to convert CO2 back to O2.
IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st half of the 21st century.
We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we will get our clocks cleaned.
If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of living.
I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.
IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for President.
All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party line.
Times are changing, they need a serious update.
He may very well have some new ideas, but he hasn't presented them.
Lew
You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15 second bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail banking failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country. Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that pollution free?
Even Palin can't explain the Fannie Mae deal in 15 seconds or two days!
As to the electrical power plant thing, yes, but.
"BUT" we are not now using oil to generate electricity at more than a handful of locations.
Nearly 80% of our transportation infrastructure, however, depends upon oil.
We impose a tax ($0.50/gallon) on imported Ethanol. THis needs to be eliminated.
We require an FM radio in all vehicles sold in the US, but do not require they be "multi-fuel" capable (adds about $120 to the production cost).
We lease oil reserves (on and off shore) without adding "explore it or lose it" language to the leases. (80% of the leases controled by Oil Corps sit idle as we speak)
OPEC has a big say in US energy production.
They decide what they will produce and, thus, influence the price per bbl at will. They added two new producing nations to OPEC without increasing output by a single barrel. Thus, effectively reducing world supplies!
Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed CAFE standards intended to reduce US demand
Our fleet used to include millions of propane-fueled vehicles - many sit in junk-yards today. These could be converted to Picken's NG, no? If we can build propane cars and trucks, we can build NG cars and trucks Every converted vehicle reduces US demand and puts pressure on OPEC
Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed significant incentives for personal Hybrid purchases You might get $2,000.00 if you bought a Prius, but it would cost you five grand more than a Hyundai They supported a four-year recaprure on the purchase of a Hummer for small business amounting to nearly forty-grand worth of incentives to put those monsters in every real estate office in the land.
Big Oil wants to lease the rest of the sites before drilling on what they have under lease now. Why is that? Control. If they can lease it all, they control all drilling in the US and thus they can have their own little OPEC. There will be no competition possble - no maverick upstart company could lease a site and start drilling as there would be no more leases available.
In fairness, the Republicans are good businessmen - savvy folks who know how to keep America's oil companies profitable. Folks who know better than I how to keep them earning big bucks and protect their future earnings. Folks who may have tunnel vision. Folks who may not see the the health, safety and well-being of our citizens as a higher value than protecting Capitalist perogatives.
They are working these schemes for our own good ;)
.you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. =A0But I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.
Yes, but, when he goes on National Television or at stump speeches he and Palin do so well, they do not talk about these things in any meaningful way.
They complain about "the Liberal Media" construing their words, but - when they have the opportunity to speak directly to the people in a live broadcast, they obfuscate like all hell and talk about scary Muslims wanting to blow us up and how great our troops are doing in the tough situation they put them in.
Yes, some can go to the web site and pour over self-serving statements designed to give the appearance of change and effective planning for a better future, But when we tune in to hear about it first hand, our hear then respond to serious questioners, we get pablum.
Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point. This one is one of the most patently absurd ones that should make people laugh in derision. The idea that solving a shortage is supply can't be solved by increasing supply -- what a concept.
Not interested in extracting? ... or not yet profitable?
... and a greater supply of crude is not going to help this, how?
Back to the politics of austerity. A more correct statement is the fact that we can't conserve our way out of this problem either. At least not while maintaining a viable, vibrant economy.
Dem talking points #2 and #3. While using that amount of energy, we also have used it to produce a significant amount of the world's food (until the politicians meddled in that arena) and a significant amount of the world's economy. It's not because we are using those things that other parts of the world are in poverty. Global warming? Since 1998, average temperatures have fallen, the idea of man-made global warming is laughable yet significant time and energy have had to be devoted to debunking this myth.
Different problem
Gore talking point
If renewable energy is viable, it will be cost competitive without artificial means --that includes both subsidies and the ridiculous idea of the carbon tax scheme.
Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December 2000, nothing he could have done would have changed that.
Sigh.... It's not *simply* drilling more holes. If it were that simple, it would have been done years ago.
They have to develop *new techniques* to extract the oil.
One involves pumping compressed chemicals into shale to extract the oil. There is a strong push to do this. And to make it easier, the government has created loopholes in the EPA laws to allow this. The trouble is, the process is secret, and the oil companies won't say what the chemicals are that they use.
And in one case, the shale is right near the aquafer in NYC. Essentially there are concerns that the unnamed chemicals will contaminate the drinking water of New York City.
So many to choose from but still unable to present even a token specific ......
Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny example of a specific example of your point. Obviously you feel there is no purpose in presenting a simple fact when broad strokes of empty allegations will do.
Only in your own mind.....your confusing empty Obama campaign rhetoric with thinking for yourself. If I'm wrong I'd still be happy to hear anything that proves such silly allegations. Rod
Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.
First two laws of debate:
1)When you have the facts on your side, use them.2)When you don't, throw crap on the wall and see if you can get something to stick.
Pretty obvious which of the above you have chosen.
Lew
Time out.
I made a statement, you chose to challenge it.
No problem; however, the burden of proof of your challenge is in your court, not mine.
Lew
This coming from the person who originated this particular discussion using such terms as "McBush", derision of our own people "our wasteful consumption", McCain has sold his sole [sic].
Mark, there are so many holes in your boat, it no longer floats.
Your side had the opportunity of a lifetime to do some good around this world of ours. Instead, greed drove your crew to drop the ball. You lose.
Every time I see one of your posts, it reminds me of that famous Python Knight: "come back here you coward!!"
As (gas) prices
The federal gasoline tax and most if not all state gas taxes are per gallon, not percentage. Gas tax revenue has declined since prices have risen dramatically because folks are using less gasoline and diesel.
We are foolish to consider using whatever reserves of US oil we have now. Far better to wait until we've used up all the rest of the world's oil, and then we will have some left. Why it's the strategic reserve in grand style! (Not really my point of view, but makes more sense than most of the opinions being floated out there.)
Of course the oil companies want more offshore leases now, even though they aren't drilling the ones they have now and don't have the crews and equipment to drill them all anyway. They can get the leases for a song now, compared to what they will cost them in 10 or 20 years when they will start to get serious about using them.
Paul F.
IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?
As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did she and she let Obama get too good a start.
What about the local and state taxing bodies? The sales taxes in various flavors that are levied are certainly not per gallon, but a percentage. The government has gotten far more out of this blip in gas prices than have the eeeeeevil oil companies. Oh, and if those aforementioned oil companies are not profitable, just who do you propose will:
a) Get new oil for consumption (The TSA, perhaps?) b) Repair the consequent damage done to institutional investments like 401Ks and union retirements funds -funds that depend in part to a solvent and profitable oil industry.
I think Hillary would be the Dems nominee if georgeous John Edwards hadn't sucked up enough votes from her to let BO sneak through.
There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a government paid position of food taster.
On Sep 14, 12:14=A0am, Doug Winterburn wrote: [snip]
As far as I can see, it was the survival of one old white guy with old white guy ideas over a bunch of other old white guys with old white guy ideas.
SFWIW, I qualify as one of those old white guys, so save you're knee jerk responses to "old white guy"
The republican party has allowed itself to be taken over by a group of hard line radicals whose only modus operandi seems to be confortation.
If nothing else, the last 8 years have proven the fallacy of that approach.
It has also caused me to distance myself from them even though I've been a registered Republican most of my voting life.
As much as I am convinced that Hillary is truly dedicated to the issues she supports, especially the social issues, she failed to recognise the sense of unrest at the grass roots level that is taking place in the country.
The majority of the people have been screwed into the wall without vasoline or even a kiss and they are ticked.
And yes, I'm one of them.
She failed to translate out of the last centuries politics and it cost her.
Lew
You are one sick puppy.
Lew
State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.
Most people, myself included, do not begrudge the oil companies a healthy profit. It is the American way and the companies and their investors deserve it provided the companies are well run. If they were to take the lead and plow a significant portion of their increased revenue back into their business by supporting R&D for alternative fuels, they would be demonstrating good business savvy. They would be doing the right thing to grow their business long term and thus ensure their stockholders good long term value, And they would gain the respect and support of US citizens who understand they are acting to advance both corporate and US interests.
But they haven't done this to any real degree. Now, no one expects the local pizza shop to worry about what's right for the US when they make their business plans and decide what to do with their profits. But Oil is a natural resource and of fundamental national importance. The failure (so far) of the oil business to acknowledge this and take action is why there is appropriate outrage from many citizens at their failure to demonstrate leadership.
Certainly there is no really short term replacement for Oil as a transportation fuel. But failing to actively and aggressively seek alternatives for the future is (IMO) a worse failing than drilling everywhere we can right now in an attempt to increase supply for a short while to temper prices.
Paul F.
New York State imposes a 4% sales tax on gasoline with my county adding another 4.75% sales tax to the cost of each gallon. Most states apply sales tax to fuels.
See:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.