Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, August 06, 2008

While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

This has become like shooting fish in a barrel. I wonder how long it will take the Democrats and the Obama campaign to highlight THIS inconvenient truth which undermines the GOP's late cries for more domestic drilling.

Everyday in almost every instance, the GOP and their shills are shown to be ignorant, lemmings, and downright idiots to spew the lies and distortions that they do when the truth shows them bankrupt of facts and any semblance of rationality whatsoever.

There is no doubt: the GOP thinks everyone else is stupid enough not to check their own lies and point out the real facts. Anyone thinking more domestic supply will stay in America only need read what the story highlights. Hurricanes hit the gulf and our pump prices go up, but they still export record amounts of refined oil outside the US?

We're suckers being played by Big Oil and their minions in Congress from both parties.

If oil exports are up so much, does it show in the trade deficit?

One of the things that is keeping the trade deficit hight, despite the weak dollar, is oil imports. Having more oil exports would tend to reduce the trade deficit.

The trade deficit is something else people whine about being high. Here we have a chance to reduce it and people are whinning about that too.

Why are trade deficits bad? Because foreigners can use their dollar to "buy up America."

Is there anything you Liberals won't complain about?!

But many energy experts say oil and petroleum products are traded globally, and it may make economic sense to export gasoline refined along the U.S. Gulf Coast to Latin America and import European-refined gasoline to U.S. East Coast markets.

"The fact is that the (United States) participates in global markets for both crude and refined products, and there are any number of variables that impact supply and prices in those markets," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association.

The White House said it was against requiring U.S. oil products to stay at home.

"Forbidding exports of U.S. petroleum reduces the incentive for domestic suppliers to produce, and could potentially lead to higher prices if U.S. production or refining declined," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The 1.6 million barrels a day in record petroleum exports represented 9 percent of total U.S. refining capacity of 17.6 million barrels a day.

However, with refiners operating at 85 percent of capacity during the January-April period, the shipments represented a much a larger share of total U.S. oil products produced.

The exports were also equal to half the 3.2 million barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products the United States imported each day over the 4-month period.

So we're going to drill more domestic oil, but the White House forbids that the oil be kept solely for domestic consumption. Goes against the GOP talking points, doesn't it?

Tell me again how increased drilling will give us more gas at the pump?

tonyroma, the Repubs are morons, they should not be linking domestic drilling to oil price. Granted, it's working for them, it seems, but they are still morons. The reason why we should drill domestically is, well, because we can. People complain about jobs going abroad and here we have an industry that could generate jobs and revenue for the country and yet people prefer to keep buying more foreign oil.

The biggest share of U.S. oil products exported went to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Brazil.

Yeah, the hell with them folks...they don't look like us...

However, both the EIA and API admitted they did not know why daily U.S. gasoline exports to Canada skyrocketed to 41,000 barrels in January-April this year from 9,000 barrels in 2007.


Canuckistan's fault....

Member...

In my opinion, spending current dollars on oil drilling would be akin to investing in whale blubber harvesting back in the late 19th century. Oil is on its way out not only because of supply issues, but because it poisons our environment as as industrialization increases globally, a viable planet cannot sustain the ecological damage. Look at the pictures from China if you can see through the smog.

We're on the frontier of the NEXT energy wave, we should stop subsidizing the dying one in my opinion. Do you know any good COBOL repairmen these days?

I can agree with ending subsidies, to everything. Ending oil subsidies only to pick and chose which "green technologies" wil get the money is pointless. The market, including yes painful price signals, will dictate which technologies will eventually overtake oil. But this can't happen overnight. It will take more than 20 years.

So, where are all the proponents of more drilling? Why aren't they posting here explaining how exporting oil drilled here in the US will lower the price they pay at the gas pump. How the potential increase in supply ten years from now will lower prices today?? Like I have said before, the "need for more drilling" was just a political tool for the Republicans to shift blame for gas prices to Democrats. It completely dishonest and McCain & Co. know that very well but are, as Republicans, depending on the stupidity of Americans to fall for another bull shit story. And, as usual, pretty much the same group goes right along as if they haven't been fooled before. Some folks never learn because they never really think.

It will take more than 20 years.

Too much money to be made. My belief is that viable alternatives will emerge in less than 5 years. Let's not forget, people have been working on this for over 25 years, they didn't just start yesterday.

And if this nation had listened to Jimmy Carter, we might already be long past petroleum's grip. But then Reagan's, "Don't worry, be happy" mantra overrode common sense and the forward looking view and replaced it with nostalgia for the 1950's. Look where that's gotten us. No oil, no oil-funded terrorism, no Iraq War, right?

Tony,

"akin to investing in whale blubber harvesting back in the late 19th century."

Great analogy...but I feel your conclusion is a little off, the rising prices of whale oil actually increased innovation, which enabled a cheaper more plentiful solution, petroleum. I feel we should continue looking/drilling for oil everywhere we can, its a good investment because the price is high. A continuation of the oil price sloping upward will reduce consumption and increase the search for alternatives, just like whaling.

Again, great analogy.......

www.oilcrisis.com

us.ft.com

Great analogy...but I feel your conclusion is a little off, the rising prices of whale oil actually increased innovation, which enabled a cheaper more plentiful solution, petroleum.

Thank you, but I think it fits perfectly. My point is that it makes no sense for taxpayers to subsidize oil exploration when oil producers have more money than God and don't spend enough of their own lucre in the process. Reliance on oil is ending just like that of whale blubber did over a 100 years ago. We should be investing in the future, not in the past. The oil companies have more than enough if they want more exploration and feel it worth the investment. We need to invest in the next wave because the last oil wave has already passed. The planet cannot sustain exponential fossil-fuel-based growth if we plan on living here too, eating food grown in earth, and drinking fresh water, and breathing non-toxic air. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but the tipping point is fast approaching.

"Reliance on oil is ending just like that of whale blubber did over a 100 years ago." - TR

The reliance on the oil ended when we found cheaper more plentiful alternative, this has not occurred yet.

There will be a cross over point, we haven't reached it, so "send the boats" and get oil. Its not a zero sum game, all or nothing....

Just like whale oil, and the articles I posted showed, once the whale oil went higher, innovations and investment in alternatives occurred.

"The planet cannot sustain exponential fossil-fuel-based growth "

You really need to read the articles on whale oil usage, adoption rates...its a population thing....our current problem is a population thing....

"My point is that it makes no sense for taxpayers to subsidize oil exploration when oil producers have more money than God and don't spend enough of their own lucre in the process." - Tr

Are you sure, I need some links countering E&Y audits ?

The top 20 U.S. and Canadian oil companies actually invested 50 percent more than they earned in the past 10 years in efforts to produce more oil, but adverse geopolitical developments conspired to give them fewer opportunities to expand production while fading oil fields in the U.S. and elsewhere forced them to spend substantially more just to maintain current production, according to the study by the Ernst & Young accounting firm.

"Reinvestment is under way, and it's strong," said Charles Swanson, an energy analyst at the firm, but "average costs to find and develop oil and gas reserves have tripled since 1997, while total reserve-replacement costs have more than doubled."

www.washtimes.com

Another point, is that the oil companies are passing out dividends, which can then be invested in alternatives to oil. If they held onto these profits, it would be capital lost to inefficiency. But allowing the money to flow out of the company, to a possible alternative energy source is efficient. Something a government run oil industry would never do.....

Off to work, thanks again...

Andrea...

July 21, 2008 The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the fervor for stock buybacks is a clear sign Big Oil isnt interested in new production or alternative energy.

When you hear that,-- he said, it screams out for a windfall profits tax.--

www.columbiamissourian.com

I think your Times story is outdated with its reports.

All we gain from exporting oil is a small royalty per barrel. What we lose by exporting it is $120 per bbl from our economy - money foreign sources use to buy up our country.

Makes no sense to be exporting a drop of oil at a time all the talk is of drilling more.

And if this nation had listened to Jimmy Carter, we might already be long past petroleum's grip.
TONYROMA

Great point Tony.
Sadly, all Carter gets is grief for his evenhanded approach to the middle east.

Does anybody bother to ask why export petroleum exports are at a record. NO!! All I see on this thread is a mob mentality.

A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007.

The 1.6 million barrels a day in record petroleum exports represented 9 percent of total U.S. refining capacity of 17.6 million barrels a day.

However, with refiners operating at 85 percent of capacity during the January-April period, the shipments represented a much a larger share of total U.S. oil products produced.


The term "refined petroleum products" could be anything from gasoline to high priced specialty items such as lubricants.

A profit seeking oil company would export if it could get a higher price overseas or if it had a surplus it couldn't sell here.

Bumpkins like Tonybama think they know how to run a successful oil company. If they get their way, it wouldn't take them a year to run Exxon into the ground. This might be a good time to invest in bicycles.

" they know how to run a successful oil company. If they get their way, it wouldn't take them a year to run Exxon into the ground."

YEAH!

Take that from someone who knows first hand how to run an Oil Company into the Ground!

Sincerely

GW

"Having more oil exports would tend to reduce the trade deficit."

Wouldn't that be a net sum zero? Every barrel we export equals one more we have to import to meet our own needs.

"Having more oil exports would tend to reduce the trade deficit."

Wouldn't that be a net sum zero? Every barrel we export equals one more we have to import to meet our own needs.

And which barrels would have greater transportation costs attached to them, the ones we have here already or the ones coming from halfway around the globe?

These guys are more than a few bricks short of a load....

This should be a front page story.

But this means that if we give the Oil Companies what they want, they'll just drill more and sell more to the highest bidder.

Why are people so interested in boosting the profits of the Oil Companies?

Dear Ray and all you oil company apologists,

Your data is a clear indication that demand has dropped significantly, putting the lie to the supply and demand to price theory of a free market. Is there any other way for retailers to change prices together every day except through collusion?

You have also proven that Exxon and every other Corporation has no interest whatsoever in the prosperity of our once great nation. If its not their job and our NeoCon Government refuses to work towards that goal, where does that leave us?

A rock could run Exxon right now. I know just the man, Shrub, like a rock, only dumber.

Nutcase,

Gas prices don't immediately reflect supply and demand changes.

Also, increases in gas prices haven't even come close to mirroring increases in the cost of a barrel of crude.

PS - Did you notice last night that Betelg called you a Bush/Reagan syncophant?

I've never called anyone a "syncophant".

But this means that if we give the Oil Companies what they want, they'll just drill more and sell more to the highest bidder.

MANYPATHS

Exactly!!

So much for "national security"

Because of the decline in manufacturing and the downturn in the American Economy, last year fer the first time America actually used 1% less gas than the previous year.

All this talk about off-shore drilling is mostly a sop to BigOil and most of that off-shore oil will end up going to China and India.

BigOil will profit and America will be lessened.

Again.

Be Well.

What part of " world oil market" don't you understand? How is releasing the pertoleum reserve going to help when you say drilling for more oil isn't going to help? Now we consume much more oil than we produce. It dosen't realy matter what we export and what we import, it's the difference between the two that matters.

Why is it so hard to understand that more wheat on the market means cheeper wheat, more potatoes on the market means cheeper potatoes, and more oil on the market means cheeper oil? What is so complicated about that?

Sniper-
If oil is released from the strategic reserves, where does that oil go?


I've never called anyone a "syncophant".

Posted by BetelG at 2008-08-06 04:01 PM

You didn't use that exact word, but the implication was there. I just thought it was funny as Nutcase is one of the most virulent anti-Bush and anti-Reagan posters on this site.

Here is the post that I was referring to:

They don't like their own country and they're determined not to assimilate into ours. They'll take it over instead. Its already happening in Europe.

What will become of science and progress?

Posted by nutcase at 2008-08-05 11:29 PM

1. What percentage of the US population are "they".

2. "What will become of science and progress"?

Are you even almost awake? The Bush admin. is the most anti-science admin since Reagan. Oh...wrong crowd.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-08-05 11:35 PM

What part of " world oil market" don't you understand? How is releasing the pertoleum reserve going to help when you say drilling for more oil isn't going to help? Now we consume much more oil than we produce. It dosen't realy matter what we export and what we import, it's the difference between the two that matters.

Why is it so hard to understand that more wheat on the market means cheeper wheat, more potatoes on the market means cheeper potatoes, and more oil on the market means cheeper oil? What is so complicated about that?

Posted by Sniper

A. - Oil pumped from U.S. government property results in a SMALL royalty per barrel paid to the U.S. economy. If it is exported ONLY that royalty stays IN the U.S. economy.

B. - Oil IMPORTED means $120 per barrel is going OUT of the country and into foreign coffers

$700,000,000,000 (billion) a year is leaving the United States economy for foreign countries when oil is IMPORTED

I didn't use that "exact word" in part because there is no such word. The really intriguing question, of course, is why are you following me around with that camera?

You're forgetting that by selling to the highest bidder, we add to the rising cost of oil around the World.

Congress should be focusing more on keeping our oil in the US instead of grandstanding for the oil compnaies and having the idiots on the left think that they are doing it for their interests.

The only reason that the GOP wants to open up more drilling is so that the oil companies can stake their claim to more oil fields. Your best interest is the farthest thing from their minds. You are giving them enough money to think about you over their oil friends.

There is NOTHING more to it than that.

I wish that some of you would open your eyes and see the obvious. Please?

Listen folks.......Oil Comapnies are making more than the ever have in the past vecause of high prices.

Why in the WORLD would oil companies advocate ANYTHING that lowered oil prices?

Now, do Oil Companies want to drill offshore?

They do? Why?

Remember.........

Why in the WORLD would oil companies advocate ANYTHING that lowered prices?

How this continues to fool so many of you is astounding.

Why in the WORLD would oil companies advocate ANYTHING that lowered prices?

Now, Jeff J, I'm unfamiliar with "Nutcase" and his political positions, but I responded to his post as I would any other I find comically distended and ready for a pin. Maybe he was being ironic, in which case I would apologize and politely recommend that he fix his irony button, because it's not working.

But I digress.

Why are you trying to get up in my ass, Jeff J?

Why are you trying to get up in my ass, Jeff J?

I'm not.

When you originally made your remark I thought it was funny given Nutcase's posting history. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the guy, so it's not as if you were being dumb, just unintentionally funny.

As for repeating it today, I just wasn't sure whether or not he saw your original comment as I thought he'd find it funny just as I did.

That is all.

This is much ado about very little.

Yes it is, which is why I was wondering.

This really pisses me off. First record profits, not record exporting to other countries. Basic law of supply and demand: when supply goes up (by keeping oil in-country) price goes down. When oil companies export to other countries, the supply goes down in the face of increased demand. These oil guys are have finally figured out that they can use their monopoly to get us to pay whatever they want for gas. Please, do your civic duty and vote for officials that do not support this.

Now it will be interesting to see if the MSM picks up on this story. They got every nit wit in America thinking that increased drilling will lower the price at the pump right away, I've even seen the idiotic claim that just by the lame duck president's desire to drill it lowered prices.

Now that this new fact is thrown into the hopper of public opinion will Joe Six Pack realize that, once again, the Republicans were yanking his chain and that gas prices are controlled by much more than just how many new wells we could have in ten years.

BTW, the royalties that are supposed to be paid to the federal government for the oil in the ground are....1. far too low, why should oil companies make obscene profits on oil they buy extremely cheaply from us
2. Unenforced much of the time and purposely so. Bush administration officials and Republican Senators like Kaye Bailey Hutchinson have placed attachments on bills to prevent the funding for the bodies that are supposed to collect unpaid royalties.
Do a little snooping on royalties payments and it becomes obvious just how crooked these people really are.

IF drilling for more oil would lower prices, you would see the oil companies fighting it tooth and nail.

Why is that so hard for some of you to understand?

the thing that keeps my 401k above water is evil oil company profits,where will the electric come from to power 3 million cars when there charging in at night?and what decade will that be?

JeffJ,

You are right about that. Whenever the wholesale price goes up the retail price is adjusted up the next day. But when the wholesale price goes down no one at the retail level sees the decrease until the retailers inventory is consumed.

You're also spot on when you notice that the retail price has not shot up as much as the wholesale price. Speculation is a very dangerous activity.

I was unaware. There is no such word as synchophant, but if you meant sycophant I would fall down laughing. Whose ass am I kissing?

1. What percentage of the US population are "they". I meant to refer to the Muslim population but was not clear. About 2%. But they already constitute the majority in some US British and French towns and apparently at Tyson Chicken.

2. "What will become of science and progress"? When you have a population that believes in enslaving all women and killing people that teach girls to read and killing the gays and refuse to assimilate into Western Society there is little room for science. It is not necessarily unique to Islam that religion is supposed to trump science. But it is their belief, even if they invented zero a long time ago.

This is much ado about very little.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-08-06 04:33 PM

Must be one hell of a callous on the hymen, Jeffy.

A big swath of the market isn't really paying that $125 a barrel number you hear about seemingly every hour. In China, India and the Middle East, governments are heavily subsidizing oil for their consumers and corporations, leading to rampant over-consumption - and driving up prices even more.

But sooner or later the world won't keep paying those prices: Eventually, the price must fall back to the cost of that last barrel to clear the market.

So what does that barrel cost today? According to Stephen Brown, an economist at the Dallas Federal Reserve, that final barrel costs just $50 to produce. And when the price is $125, the incentive to pour out more oil, like homebuilders' incentive to build more two years ago, is irresistible.

It takes a while to develop new supplies of oil, but the signs of a surge are already in place. Shale oil costing around $70 a barrel is now being produced in the Dakotas. Tar sands are attracting investment in Canada, also at around $70. New technology could soon minimize the pollution caused by producing oil from our super-plentiful supplies of coal.

"History suggests that when there's this much money to be made, new supplies do get developed," says Brown.

That's just the supply side of the equation. Demand should start to decline as well, albeit gradually.

"Historically, the oil market has under-anticipated the amount of conservation brought on by high prices," says Brown. Sales of big cars are collapsing; Americans are cutting down on driving. The airlines are scaling back flights.

We've learned another important lesson from the housing market: The longer prices stay stratospheric, the worse the eventual crash - simply because the higher the prices and bigger the profit margins, the bigger the incentive to over-produce.

It's even possible that, a few years hence, we could see a sustained period of plentiful oil supplies and low prices, meaning $50 or below.

A similar scenario occurred following the price explosion in the 1970s and early 1980s. The price spike caused the world to cut back sharply on oil consumption. By the mid-80s, oil prices had fallen from almost $40 to around $15. They remained extremely low for two decades.

It's impossible to predict how the adjustment this time will take shape, just as it was in housing. There the surge in supply came in places the experts swore there was "no supply," and wouldn't be any. Builders found a way to extend vast tracts of homes into California's Inland Empire and Central Valley, and even build "in-fill" projects near the densely-populated coasts.

An earlier bubble is also instructive. In the early 1980s silver prices jumped from $10 to $50 on the theory that the world was facing a permanent shortage of silver. Suddenly ads appeared asking homeowners to bring their tea sets and jewelry to Holiday Inns for a big price. Silver supplies poured from seemingly nowhere, out of America's cupboards, of all places.

And so it will be with oil. We don't know where the new abundance will come from, from shale, or tar sands or coal or an OPEC desperate to regain market share. We just know that it will appear. With prices like these, it always does.

Please note that refining oil is not simply turning it into gasoline. When you refine oil you produce a basket of hydrocarbons including gasoline, heating oil, the base for plastics resins, and asphalt. "Refined Petroleum Products" is a HUGE category.

If you tell a refiner that he can't find a market for, say, parrafin then he has to charge more for what he can sell... say gasoline.

Yup. Oil companies care about americans...

Offshore drilling will not reduce the price today. But allowing it ten years ago would have reduced it today. The second best time to allow the drilling is NOW. (The first was back when it was stupidly banned).

How can it make sense to let other countries drill off American shores but not allow American firms to do so?

To those of you convinced it's a bad idea because BIG OIL supports it...

Profit=Revenue (volumexprice) - Cost

A higher price for a barrel is more profit in the short term, but higher prices depress volume in several ways.

A better route to profit is reduced cost - and BIG OIL would rather have safe cheap oil it can control off America's coast than have to buy it from some nutjob who just may nationalize their investment.

and BIG OIL would rather have safe cheap oil it can control off America's coast than have to buy it from some nutjob who just may nationalize their investment.


Then why are they selling our stuff and buying theirs?

People, if Big Oil is for it, then they are looking for more ways to charge you more money.

The facts are on the bottom line of their income statements.

Big Oil is in this game to make as much money as they possibly can. NO OTHER REASON.

Think people. They are just using our elected officials to gouge you out of your last oil dollar.

Do not listen to anyone who tries to tell you they have any other motive than to get their hands on the nations oil and sell it to the highest bidder.

That is what they are doing now, it is what they have done in the past and now that the Republicans are on their way oput the door, they are making one last desperate attempt to get their hands on the crude they don't already own.

The only surprising part of all this is that so many of you blindly fall for it.

This isn't rocket science folks.

Conversation between Cheney and the Devil:

Cheney: please dont bang my oily, smelly asshole, it will hurt!

Devil: SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Criminal Fraud:

Huge oil exports from America means there is a "surplus" of oil and that high gas and oil prices are solely on account of "Price Fixing"!!!

"But environmentalists and other opponents to expanding drilling areas could seize on the record exports to argue Congress should...indict the Bush Govt and oil companies like EXXON and Mobil etc.with "Criminal Fraud;Monopolization;Price Fixing and Racketeering...and thats just for starters!

A. - Oil pumped from U.S. government property results in a SMALL royalty per barrel paid to the U.S. economy. If it is exported ONLY that royalty stays IN the U.S. economy.

$700,000,000,000 (billion) a year is leaving the United States economy for foreign countries when oil is IMPORTED

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

All the wages paid here for drilling, transporting, refining, etc, in the US stay in the US

You seem to think it cost $10 per bbl to produce and the other $120+ is going into the oil companies pockets. Ain't the way it works. The spot price you see is for sweet mideast crude. That ain't the price for all oil. Various qualities of oil have different prices.

Money is leaving the US when oil is imported but the oil imported has a value. It is the engine of out economy. Without fuel for the US, we would be some third rate country like so many around the world. Is that what you want?

Our money is no good. If I had millions or billions of dollars worth of anything to sell, I would export it and trade in something other then the US dollar. The oil companies have lost trust in the dollar.

You Know, I am a republican and if this is true, i would pay more if it was OUR oil,anything to tell those arab Mooselams to F*** off, who the F*** comes up with this sh**. But I still think democrats (Not all Just Pelosi and her ilk) are absolute socialist, pot-smoking, whining, egotistical, lying power hungry, Idiots who want to control everything we do..Just think about it ..an unarmed, sedated populace is very easy to control..

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
What a hoot. And only a librul would reach that conclusion. No one wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They want to drill in the area set aside for drilling that is surrounded by the Refuge. The uninhabited mud flats called Anwar. America can reduce oil consumption, but will the China man or will will the Indian man? Doubt it. They will only increase their consumption due to the heavy subsidizing of the gas prices by their governments.

$700,000,000,000 (billion) a year is leaving the United States economy for foreign countries when oil is IMPORTED

Posted by AMERICANUNITY
uhhh. your stupid.

It makes sense they want to drill for oil off-shore... it's closer to the market where they intend to sell it....

MIDNIGHTCOWBOY

Write T. Boone Pickens a letter and tell him that.

Yours is not a retort.

What part of "$700,000,000,000 (billion) leaves the U.S. Economy for oil exporting nations" don't you understand?

What part of "$700,000,000,000 (billion) leaves the U.S. Economy for oil exporting nations" don't you understand?

Based on his articulate reply, probably every word except "what"....

Good show, TONY ~ getting this on the front page.

Now if we could only get the MSM talking heads interested in someting else besides Britney Spears' tits, this information might make a diference.

Fat chance, huh?

What part of "$700,000,000,000 (billion) leaves the U.S. Economy for oil exporting nations" don't you understand?
AmericanUrinater you changed the quote. You originaly said "$700,000,000,000 (billion) a year is leaving the United States economy for foreign countries when oil is IMPORTED".

So either you realized the stupidity of your quote or as you libruls like to say "you lied". Which is it?

Oh, but maybe that was a quote from "T Bone Pickens". And since he has no agenda, he must be right.

I you want to suggest the US should stop selling and buying oil on the open market, then you must be stupid.

"Offshore drilling will not reduce the price today. But allowing it ten years ago would have reduced it today."

That is not necessarily true at all. It probably would not have effected the price of gas one single cent since oil producing countries limit their production to keep prices high.
Pumping oil from federal lands and then exporting that oil at a huge profit should be illegal. If oil is pumped from federal lands the royalty paid to the government should be tied to the final selling price of that oil. Let the federal government share in the profit from our oil. Why should the oil companies keep such huge windfall profits on oil that belongs to the people of the US???

AmericanUrinater you changed the quote. You originaly said "$700,000,000,000 (billion) a year is leaving the United States economy for foreign countries when oil is IMPORTED".

I stand by my previous comment.

Midnight, sir, when the US IMPORTS oil what do we then EXPORT to pay for said oil?

Thats right, US DOLLARS! Isn't that what American... stated in the first place, even as you wrongly smear him for proving your lack of simple reading comprehension skills?

No shit, Tony.

When we BUY imports tha money LEAVES the country for the country of origin.

I'm amazed he has such a hard time grasping such a simple concept.

The simple logic which tells us that the supply on the global market can be manipulated by the more significant oil producers by either INCREASING or DECREASING their own production to compensate for any additional oil that comes into the market at any particular time, hasn't yet registered to the majority of people who believe additional US-based drilling will increase supply.

The oil sellers have no incentive to reduce the price of oil when they've created a market that will absorb the high prices we currently see. The entire notion is anti-capitalism at its core. The only goal of capitalists is to make the most money they can selling their products on the global market. Increasing supply and decreasing prices is NOT something the oil producers are going to do even if we allow drilling on every street corner in the United States. Common sense tells us otherwise.

Rather than sending those dollars elsewhere for oil, it would be better if we were keeping them in our economy - which is what increased domestic driling would accomplish, no?

Correct. No.

That oil will end up on the world market like the rest of our domestic production.

the best way to reduce IMPORTS is to quit EXPORTS - especially when much of it comes from leases on U.S. Federal lands, for which we're only paid a royalty - when the oil companies feel like paying it. Some have been holding back in their payments.

Like much of our domestic production.

That oil will end up on the world market like the rest of our domestic production.

Which is where the oil always goes. If the US increases its output, US-produced oil snares a bigger share of the global pie. None of the other players want this to be the case.

DANNI

The whole story about the Strategic Oil Reserves is linked below. It's an interesting read if you haven't already done so.

Following is an excerpt about royalties and how they're paid in an off and on basis:

On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (111,000,000 m), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (1.156E+8 m) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is "royalty-in-kind" oilroyalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties "in kind" - or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the Federal treasury.

en.wikipedia.org"en.wikipedia.org/a>STRATEGIC OIL RESERVES

Do you know any good COBOL repairmen these days?

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-08-05 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let's watch those COBOL comments. I'm quite proficient in COBOL, FORTRAN and machine language. I still get the occasional request for help even though I hate coding. I think of it as a job security enhancement.

Rather than sending those dollars elsewhere for oil, it would be better if we were keeping them in our economy - which is what increased domestic driling would accomplish, no?

Partially, but wouldn't it be better if the US became the producer of new energy technology that the entire world is going to need as we wean our dependence upon oil altogether?

Let the oil companies invest in oil exploration and let our government incentivize the discovery and implimentation of new energy sources instead. The rewards will far outweigh those gained by more drilling on US territory.

We import about 10 million bbls per day acording to the Energy Information Admin (EIA)

You do the math and you will not get to the T B P number of 7

Domestic = 6 mil bbl per day
Import = 10 mil bbl per day

Total US use = 16 mil bbl per day

Tony,

This is from a different thread:

Fact is, oil is and will be our primary energy source, particularly in regards to transportation, for the next 20-50 years. Until a viable alternative emerges and the infrastructure necessary to support it is built, we have to deal with the practical reality that is oil. I would gladly replace oil with another energy source provided said source is:
1. comparable or better in terms of output per unit
2. is comparable or better in terms of cost
3. is as simple and convenient to replenish as going to the pumps is now.
I can tell you this, I am quite confident that a majority of Americans won't latch onto a different energy source unless it meets the 3 criteria just stated.
-JeffJ

High gas prices are hitting the poor the hardest. I agree that alternative technologies should be researched and tested. That being said, oil will be with us for awhile and as long as it is, we should (IMO) be looking for ways to increase production in an attempt to lower prices.

Jeff, but the basic point of increased drilling having a significant effect on the price we pay at the pump is still false. If there was a real significant benefit to increased drilling then why did the Republicans not cause it to happen when they controlled Congress???
That's my point, this is just a political game, the oil companies don't even drill on all the places they have leased right now, it was just an attempt to shift the blame for the high price of gas to the Dems since they marginally gained control of congress in 2006. I'm surprised you don't recognize that.

"Reps say: conserve, drill, explore all avenues..."

Funny, they just started saying that after controlling Congress for many years. I think what they really mean is give the oil companies whatever tax breaks and subsidies they want, let them drill where they want, let them pay royalties if they want to, and then and only then if there is any spare change in the budget we will explore alternative energy sources.
T Boone Pickens believes wind energy is doable right now for 20% of our electrical needs. That is "holding out hope" that is doing what needs to be done now. Major investment needs to be put into alternative energy so I think all tax breaks for oil companies should be shifted to alternative energy instead.

"Could it be that there is little oil there?"

Maybe on some of it but not on all of it.

"High gas prices are hitting the poor the hardest. I agree that alternative technologies should be researched and tested. That being said, oil will be with us for awhile and as long as it is, we should (IMO) be looking for ways to increase production in an attempt to lower prices."

Just repeating the idea of more drilling won't make that bring down prices. Price is not going to be effected by additional drilling. How many times do you have to be told??? Deal with the political aspect...like why the Republicans didn't see this critical need for additional drilling when they controlled Congress, why suddenly drilling is the culprit for high gas prices....why they won't tell you that the high gas prices have more to do with Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy than additional drilling? Why won't the Republicans tell you that the value of the dollar is more responsible for high gas prices than lack of drilling????
You guys are just repeating what they want you to think instead of really considering the real causes for high gas prices.

but the basic point of increased drilling having a significant effect on the price we pay at the pump is still false.

Agreed.

If there was a real significant benefit to increased drilling then why did the Republicans not cause it to happen when they controlled Congress???

Because they are spineless. Gas prices have only skyrocketed in the last couple of years. Had they any backbone they would have shirked global warming hysteria and been more proactive on this, but instead they legislated via pop culture. The fact that it took this shock and awe to spur them into action is telling. The fact that Dems are STILL resistant to increased domestic production is even more telling.

"Could it be that there is little oil there?"

Maybe on some of it but not on all of it.

An oil lease expires after 7 years. Oil companies 'lease' land that they believe holds promise for oil. Then, they spend considerable monies surveying and prospecting the land and in 75% of the leased lands the amount of oil present coupled with the costs required to extract and refine it would mean operating at a loss. This is why 75% of these leases remain untapped.

Major investment needs to be put into alternative energy so I think all tax breaks for oil companies should be shifted to alternative energy instead.

Why?
Because you hate big oil and love green technology?

I have no problem with funds being tapped to spur research and development. However, to subsidize an inferior energy source that couldn't cut it on its own is simply stupid. Until these other sources of energy reach the developmental stage where they can be competitive with oil, we shouldn't be clamoring to use them.

Fund the R&D but don't use the power of government to force consumption when it doesn't make economic sense to do so.

Everything Republicans tell you is 100% unadulterated Bullshit and spin aimed at appealing to redneck assholes with no brains or common sense.

"We need to drill for more Oil in America and the Democrats are stopping us"

We need to drill for more oil in America so we can export more to foreign countries?

Go Fuck yourselves you lying coneiving greedy bastards !

Why won't the Republicans tell you that the value of the dollar is more responsible for high gas prices than lack of drilling????

So, you've narrowed everything down to deficits driving inflation and plunging the dollar.

OK.

What is Obama's proposal? Increase taxes but ALSO massively increase spending. So, in essence, maintain deficit spending.

Also, you view this issue through a 1-sided prism. Increase tax rates and you'll decrese the incentive to invest for growth. Dems always talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy' without ever acknowledging any of the negative tradeoffs for doing so. I am surprised you don't see this.

OOhrah and Jeff neither of you have dealt with what I contend are the real reasons for the extremely high gas prices.

1. Inflation of dollar caused by deficit spending and no taxation to pay down deficit

"What say you regarding the Dem controlled Congress since 2006? The one which promised to take care of gas prices."

Until the tax cut for the wealthy expires or is rescinded no relief will come. If we don't stop the inflation of the dollar prices will continue to rise. Bush and the Republicans can prevent any attempt to eliminate the tax cut for the rich so the blame falls on them to those who really want to find answers and not just pretend solutions.

"What is Obama's proposal? Increase taxes but ALSO massively increase spending."

I haven't heard him say he wants to increase spending. My bet is he will reign in spending, especially in regards to Iraq, Medicare Drug Bill, no bid contracts for Bush cronies, etc. Bill Clinton's administration operated on "pay as you go" and I think that will be the Obama policy as well. Don't pretend that Democrats are as irresponsible as Republicans when we can look back only 7 years and see quite clearly they weren't.

What is Obama's proposal? Increase taxes but ALSO massively increase spending.

JEFFJ

Unless you're making over $250,000 you'll get a tax cut. Of course you know that, but it just wouldn't fit your rhetoric. LOL Gonna take someone like Bush to 'massively increase spending". But, of course you voted for him twice. Gee, thanks.

I agree we should nationalize our oil industry. We're not getting enough for the oil pumped from government controlled and owned oil fields. Even at that, the oil companies balk at making the royalty payments.

Danni,

Tax cuts for the rich aren't necessarily the problem.

The fact that government spending is exceeding government revenues is the problem.

What I'd like to see is a comprimise:

1. The Republicans agree to rescind the 'tax cuts for the wealthy'.

2. The Democrats agree to let the Republican party reduce a commensurate amount of government spending in the areas that the Republican party chooses.

Somehow, I suspect you and your party would never agree to point #2 as part of an equal comprimise.

"Increase tax rates and you'll decrese the incentive to invest for growth."

Exactly wrong. The value of TAx deductions for investment into job creating businesses INCREASE as taxes go up, decrease when they go down.
Consider capital gains, the vast majority earned on stocks which create no jobs, no trickle down effect at all. Investing in the stock market only benefits the investor and the person he buys the stock from, but there is no new business created, no jobs created. Investment into a new factory though is a different story.

Investing in the stock market only benefits the investor and the person he buys the stock from, but there is no new business created - DANNI

What do you think they do with their gains? Put it under the mattress? The stock brokers would disagree that there are no new businesses created from the stock market.

I haven't heard him say he wants to increase spending.

He wants national health care.

I agree we should nationalize our oil industry.

Just appropriate and confiscate an entire industry? Why stop there? Why not nationalize our entire economy?

Fun discussion - gotta run.

"Somehow, I suspect you and your party would never agree to point #2 as part of an equal comprimise."

Duh. Personally, I don't even buy into the talking point that we need to reduce government spending. Virtually every penny that the government takes in gets spent and fuels the economy. With unemployment rising we could probably do with some more government spending on infrastructure which would get wages rising and really get the economy growing again. We built the richest country in the world while at the same time had extremely high income tax rates on the wealthy. Funny thing, the wealthy thought they were better off investing in factories, etc. than paying it in tax. Taht created millions of good paying jobs, our country prospered. Make no mistake, you can track the decline of our middle class right to Ronnie Raygun's door, his tax cuts, and his economic philosophy. He ended fifty years of steady growth and wage increases. We are seeing the end result today.

"What do you think they do with their gains? Put it under the mattress?"

They buy more stock. Stocks rise in value but still no jobs are created. The only investment that creates jobs is that which is directed to building factories, buying resources, etc.

They buy more stock. Stocks rise in value but still no jobs are created. The only investment that creates jobs is that which is directed to building factories, buying resources, etc.

Posted by danni

I was part owner in a business that went public in 99. When we went public the stock went up 30% in six months from our original offering. We grew about 50% in the following six months. This isn't like bingo or craps. There is planing involved. Just because you don't understand how it works don't assume everyone thinks like you.

this is where north slope oil that was PROMISED to come to the US ended up.. The additional drilled oil off the continental shelf will suffer the same fate..

IPO to raise money is different than trading stocks that are already in distribution.

(as is owning stock options, personally, and benefiting from a good vesting program and the subsequent (hopefully) increase in stock value)

"When we went public the stock went up 30% in six months from our original offering."

Duh...and that money was invested in your business but when that stock trades now your company gets nothing, the new owners of the stock just trade with the old owners of the stock. So, It is EXACTLY what I said before. Double duh!!

IPO to raise money is different than trading stocks that are already in distribution.

The company is still public and growth and value are still linked. If they have a good year the value stays up. Lean years cause it to fall.

Danni, My 7 year old has a better grasp of cash flow than you. The stock becomes part of the business. Keeping the value high becomes part of the system. Maybe not on the employee level but on the management level.

STI8RSUMUP let me try to make this simple enough for even you to understand.

OK, I start a company and sell stock. The money I get for that original offering goes into the business as capital. I then hire people to work for my new company.
Now those shares I sold are now owned by stock investors who will then resell them to other stock investors. When they resell them no money flows to the company. Additional capital is not then raised by the company. No new jobs are created at the company I created.
No matter how many more times this stock is traded it still will not bring one cent to the company. Not one more job will ever be created by that stock.

Now what about this is so hard for you to grasp?

This is the truth that Republicans don't want you to consider when evaluating the capital gains tax. They want you to believe that capital gains represents job creating investments when they know that the vast majority of those funds just invest in stocks which long ago were sold to raise capital for a business but now are just traded between stock investors, never yielding anything for the original companies that they represent ownership of. Thus most capital gains do not benefit anyone except the owner of that stock and thus they should be taxed just like income from labor.

Reading this forum makes me wonder if Democracy is really a good idea after all.

That people so ill-informed discuss policy that actually matters is frightening.

Please tell me none of you leave your basements to vote.

DANNI, I have sold ALL of my portfolio at times and used the gains in other ventures - real estate and even opening a small business. You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.

"DANNI, I have sold ALL of my portfolio at times and used the gains in other ventures - real estate and even opening a small business. You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown."

That has nothing to do with whether stock trades create jobs or not. Obviously, if you sold your stock and invested into a business then you proving my argument. Only by removing your money from the stock market and investing into your company could that money actually create new jobs.
And Oohrah, that is true but we both know that 99.999% of stock trades are not newly issued stock.

All I am telling you folks is that you need to question the talking points. John McCain is still pretending that extending tax breaks for rich people will create jobs when exactly the opposite is true whether you want to believe it or not. It is just a simple fact.

Investors invest in companies to AVOID taxes, if taxes are too low the motive for avoiding the tax is also low.

Back for a bit....

Personally, I don't even buy into the talking point that we need to reduce government spending.

You are blaming deficits for our economic woes.

Deficits occur when government spending exceeds government income.

Your party wants to raise taxes without reigning in spending, or ONLY reigning in spending where THEY deem it appropriate, but with a net increase in spending overall.

The Republican party wants to reign in spending, but only where they deem in appropriate.

I suggest a 2-pronged bi-partisan approach to curbing deficit spending. The Republicans make a major concession - agreeing to rescinding the tax breaks for the wealthy AND the Democrats make a major concession - agreeing to a commensurate cut in spending in areas that are beholden to their base.

I would love for McCain to offer this kind of approach:

I will veto any tax increases that come accross my desk, with 1 crucial exception: if said tax increases are coupled with an equal decrease in government spending in areas that the Republican party approves of. If we are going to call ourselves the party of fiscal responsibility we have to be willing to make sacrifices but ONLY if the Democratic party is able to make comparable sacrifices. I am willing to take the political risk of sacrificing an issue that is beholden to the Republican base IF the Democratic party is willing to make a similar gesture. In fact, my proposed budget will already reflect such a spirit of comprimise. When I become president, I and my party are willing to throw the first pitch: Offer a proposal that allows for equal sacrifice for both parties. The ball will then be in the Democrats' court. I challenge the Democratic party to step up on this issue. Are you, the Democratic party, willing to match the sacrifices offered by the Republican party in the name of fiscal responsibility?"

PS - in short, you want your cake and you want to be able to eat it too. No comprimise agreements. No mutual sacrifice. You appear to simply want the Democratic party to have 100% control of the purse-strings and appear to balk at any comprimise offered by Republicans.

The crux of the energy debate seems to be an unwillingness on Dems' part to advocate known viable alternatives (increased domestic drilling, coal, nuclear) and hold out hope for other sources... and meanwhile think we can conserve our way out of our problem.

The crux of the problem continues to be the Right's refusal to educate themselves on exactly what Obama's Energy Proposals contain. He's never been against nuclear power, EVER! He's against more growth in nuclear power without adequate safety measures being in place so that fissile materiel can't find its way into the hands of terrorists as well as solving the nuclear waste disposal issues.

He's always been a proponent of clean coal technology and will accept more drilling as part of a comprehensive plan that is heavier on investment in newer, clean energy technologies. The only thing holding back more new energy ideas from coming to market has been the lack of willingness to leave oil behind. That tide is now turning.

No matter how many more times this stock is traded it still will not bring one cent to the company. Not one more job will ever be created by that stock." - DANNI

I have to hand it to you. It's rare to see someone take such a strong stand on something they know nothing about.

Investors invest in companies to AVOID taxes, if taxes are too low the motive for avoiding the tax is also low.

Posted by danni

Here all these years I thought I was trying to make money to support my lifestyle when I no longer feel like working. To think, I was just trying to avoid paying taxes. If I had known that I could have just sat on my ass and let others support me. Then I could really avoid paying taxes.

The Republicans make a major concession - agreeing to rescinding the tax breaks for the wealthy AND the Democrats make a major concession - agreeing to a commensurate cut in spending in areas that are beholden to their base.

Why Jeff? Why should Democrats agree to consider Republican proposals after the GOP has stoned the Dems ever since 2001? Why haven't the Republicans cut spending when it was completely within their control? Why did the Republicans lower government revenues by extending tax breaks to those who needed it the least while increasing government fees at most every level while real wages have stagnated or risen less than inflation?

In other words, why is it the Democrats responsibility to even listen to the bunglers who created the conditions we now face when they didn't do a damn thing about it for nearly 8 years?!?

You are much too kind by half....

STIRSUMUP don't be embarrassed that you lost an argument, it happens every day.

"PS - in short, you want your cake and you want to be able to eat it too. No comprimise agreements. No mutual sacrifice. You appear to simply want the Democratic party to have 100% control of the purse-strings and appear to balk at any comprimise offered by Republicans."

First, the least bipartisan Congress ever was the Republican Congress pre-2006.

Secondly, I don't think Dems are opposed to all spending cuts but we certainly would not just let the Republicans decided what needs to be cut either.
They would obviously cut the programs that don't benefit themselves. I think a review of programs and some cuts would be likely. However, there is absolutely not reason to believe that doing that will benefit the economy. In our history federal spending has helped our economy not hurt it. We would never have emerged from the Depression of 1929 without massive government spending, conveniently we had a war to spend it on but the jobs created not only supported our war effort but also revived our economy.
The US always since Roosevelt used the "prime the pump" approach which served us very well until Republicans were able to convince enough Americans that killing the goose that laid the golden egg was a good idea.

OK Tony.

So you are arguing that the actions of the Republican party were bad (I agree) and then advocate the Democratic party do the exact same fucking thing???

If Obama were to offer up the type of bi-partisan concessions that I've alluded to, I could find myself voting for him. THIS issue would be a perfect chance for Obama to demonstrate 2 things:

1. He really IS about change and unity in a practical sense.

2. He's willing to let bygones be bygones and is willing to lead the way toward positive change that BOTH sides can agree on.

But, I won't hold my breath. Not that I expect McCain to do what I am suggesting either. Which all puts me back to square 1 - voting for the lesser of 2 evils: McCain.

JEFF you want "compromise" apparently but unfortunately both sides have opposite views on economics. Republican supply siders believe that our economy will grow with less taxation, Dems believe that government spending will put more money in the hands of consumers which will make our economy grow larger.
Generally the Dems view has been proven correct time after time after time.
Supply side never works, it is nothing but a scam and ends up causing a contraction in the economy,lower tax revenues, lower wages, fewer jobs, and then inflation as the government tries to operate without the tax base necessary.

Danni continues to receive an IDIOT FLAG

""Proven?" How so?"

Just look at our history. Since Roosevelt we built the largest and richest working class in the world along with the richest nation in the world.
During that time we had very high income tax rates which caused those with money to invest in companies that created jobs. Good paying jobs.
Since Reagan we began lowering income tax rates which reduced the incentive for the wealthy to invest in companies that create jobs so they play the stock market, buy real estate, etc. which are investments that benefit them but do not creat jobs and raise wages.
Government spending creates jobs, raises wages and allows the wealthy to avoid paying high income taxes if they invest their funds into businesses that create more jobs and raise wages more.

Oohrah, the right has sold this country a bill of goods which is not paying off. Today the concentration of wealth continues to focus most wealth at the top, does not create the jobs we need and allows wages to stay stagnant since their is no shortage of labor.
You can pretend that what I am saying isn't so but any honest review of the American economy since Roosevelt will show you that it is true.

"Taxing ourselves to prosperity?"

Oddly enough that is almost exactly true.

1. He really IS about change and unity in a practical sense.

2. He's willing to let bygones be bygones and is willing to lead the way toward positive change that BOTH sides can agree on.

I believe you're intelligent enough to understand simple written proposals as well as carefully thought out spoken points. What I just posted is a COMPROMISE, not a demand. The fact that Obama has always maintained he's open to other's ideas and not set on his own underscores what you say that you want.

You heard him say over and over again during the primary season that "We have to be as careful leaving Iraq as we were careless in entering...", yet the McCainites turn this into "cut and run" or unconditional withdrawal. Do you see that in his words?

Obama's entire adult career has been based upon compromise if you've read anything about him at all. That is why is so well-thought-of by members of both parties which he's encountered along the way. He doesn't demonize nor ostracize his opposition and isn't afraid to admit when they have a good point against his own beliefs or proposals.

Oohrah...

The point that Danni is trying to make is based upon how taxation is applied to those with more wealth, not that it is applied at all. This nation has already discovered if wealth is hoarded or merely spent on trinkets, it doesn't benefit society as much as its re-investment into job creation and start-up capital.

Our problems today exist because of the amounts of "investment structures" not based upon providing capital to industries starving for investment, but instead its going to speculative future's markets, which tend to only benefit the investors themselves, not aiding the producers or the consumers.

Taxes on investment might be a bad idea on the surface, but investments merely made as a hedge to make a buck aren't beneficial to the overall economy, infact it takes potential investment avenues away from producing jobs, placing them instead just for the sake of chasing money itself. This is why the capital gains arguments are so heated. Gains made which have come from investment in people and infrastructure are quite different than gains made simply from "gambling" when no tangible product or service is funded by the process.

Somewhere there needs to be a reconciliation between the different types of money-making activities our diverse economy offers as well as the level of taxation, or inherent tax relief benefits given to those more conducive to strong economic growth and not merely the multiplication of money based on speculation.

Now Tony put that into a talking point short enough for average folks to listen to and remember and it would do some good. That really is, IMHO, the basic problem in America, real solutions are complex and don't fit into short talking points but the right isn't really interested in real solutions they are primarily interested in preserving personal wealth and influence. IN that belief they haven't really changed since pre-Revolutionary days. Todays right wingers would have been Torries in those days.

the basic problem in America, real solutions are complex and don't fit into short talking points but the right isn't really interested in real solutions they are primarily interested in preserving personal wealth and influence.

There you go again with your mantra of "my side is great and their side is evil". Again.

Stop it!

You are a bright woman, don't dumb yourself down to such a petty and stupid level.

Whatever Jeff.

The fact that Obama has always maintained he's open to other's ideas and not set on his own underscores what you say that you want.

So, he talks a good talk. On this front McCain has a much longer and more proven track record. He has a history of action that supports this notion.
"I am a uniter not a divider."
That sounded nice too. Did it pan out?

Whatever?

Re-read what you just posted and then get back to me.

Here, I'll help you:

the right isn't really interested in real solutions they are primarily interested in preserving personal wealth and influence.

My analysis of your written word is dead-on, and you know it.

So, he talks a good talk.

On this front McCain has a much longer and more proven track record. He has a history of action that supports this notion.
"I am a uniter not a divider."
That sounded nice too. Did it pan out?
~JeffJ

Maybe the problem you sight was a shortcoming of the poor talker..

Jeff, look at the economy, do you think it is an accident???
Huge amounts of money have been made with the knowledge that the housing bubble would burst but they did it anyway to make the Bush tax cuts look reasonable.
Sorry, they are evil. That is just how it is.

Sorry, they are evil. That is just how it is.

Well, there you have it.

To discuss this further is pointless.

You are so convinced that your worldview is correct and opposing opinions are not only wrong, but "evil". We've reached an impasse.

On this front McCain has a much longer and more proven track record. He has a history of action that supports this notion.

Please provide a list of all McCain's "bi-partisan accomplishments". I've already seen it, and there's scant little there of significance other than campaign finance reform which he's now against and the Gang of 13 anti-filibuster movement. 26 years Jeff.

Obama's championed and passed the Act with Dick Lugar (R-IN) which helps keep Eastern European nuclear materiel out of the hands of terrorists, and authored the most comprehensive ethics reform legislation ever passed in the Senate. He's also authored or co-sponsored numerous bills with prominent GOP Senators, some of whom seem to have forgotten that he did as they go on tv making the same erroneous claims that you just did. And I didn't even mention Obama's history of bi-partisan successes in the Illinois legislature including death penalty reform and the Illinois version of S-CHIP which brought thousands of children healthcare services and is even harder than the US Senate in finding mutual agreement on most issues.

You're spouting a talking point which is easily disputed by a quick check of the records.

Jeff, give me any evidence that what I say isn't true. Give me an argument. Don't just say I'm unfair because I have an opinion. I consider opposing views but please, you got to support your side with facts.

Jeff, give me any evidence that what I say isn't true. Give me an argument. Don't just say I'm unfair because I have an opinion. I consider opposing views but please, you got to support your side with facts.

My analysis of your written word is dead-on, and you know it.

No, it's not.

If you use Danni's entire statement instead of cherry picking it out of context, her statement is an accurate description of a certain group of people. You need to look no further then the poster known as FWThom, for a running example of the type of statements she has implied.

Your disagreement with the bias is your personal issue.

Some govt is necessary. I believe it's grown too large and is inefficient in many aspects.

I agree, but I think that reasonable people can come to agreement on a mutually beneficial solution. Its impossible to pay the bills by declaring "No new taxes" when the government runs perennial deficits and discretionary spending goes unchecked.

We need new tax revenue and we need to encourage productive growth with investment credits. But at the same time government shouldn't subsidize destructive investment practices just because someone will make money on them, while others tend to lose same on the other side, without any meaningful progress being made for our overall society in the process.

The taxpayers are footing the bill when all the shit hits the fan. Corporations drop their pensions for workers, but the executives cash out with millions and retirees are forced back into the workforce. How is that fair? Shouldn't those executives lose their pensions as well if the worker's pensions aren't protected? Shouldn't the shareholder's pay for the mistakes of management instead of the taxpayers?

There is scant little downside for business investors these days and total vulnerability for the workers. The pendulum has swung too far. Its time for it to swing back, so more force must be placed upon the side where it sits right now, and thats on the money class, not the lowly struggling workers. Fair is fair.

tonyroma,

"Shouldn't the shareholder's pay for the mistakes of management instead of the taxpayers?"

I believe that their stock generally tanks to the point of being worthless. Ask the people who were invested in Enron. I believe the price for Bear Stearns was $2 per share.

TonyRoma-
"A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. "

Ah..but the patriots of the free market wear the flag on their shoulders....

we're such suckers, and born every minute.

LAJ-
re: "I believe the price for Bear Stearns was $2 per share."

Dude. (slap slap slap). Wake up. Bear Stearns was bailed out to the tune of billions of your precious tax dollars.

Dear Ray and all you oil company apologists,

I have no more love for the oil companies than they do for me. What I see on this thread is a bunch of know-nothings who think they know it all. When you mess with what you don't understand, you only make matters worse and I have to live with this madness if some of their ideas ever go into effect.

Right off the top of my head, I know that the purchasing power of the dollar dropped 40% since Bush invaded Iraq. That accounts for the bulk of the rise in gasoline. Second off all, 80% of the world's oil fields are nationalized. To blame the oil companies for some kind of price fixing conspiracy is just plain ignorant.

One of the most rapid on this thread is Tonybama. Washington hasn't balanced a budget in a hundred years and that lumpen thinks Washington can run an effective energy policy with screwing it up. For Chris sakes, they've had an energy policy since the 70s. Doing the same things over again with a new face will continue to make matters worse.

'Doing the same things over again with a new face will continue to make matters worse.'

hope is eternal, aye ~ Ray?:>)

Bani

To paraphrase Mencken, politics is the triumph of hope over experience. These people have an insatiable desire to make the world run the way they think it should done. Every election, they put a new shade of lipstick on the same wolf.

Every election, they put a new shade of lipstick on the same wolf.

And every election you sit and cry wolf like the succulent baby all can tell that you are with your insecure self.

You don't speak untruths all the time, you just resign yourself to corruption and distrust as rules of nature. You and I both know you didn't give Obama a snowball's chance in hell to win the nomination, and yet he did because he outsmarted all those who said that he couldn't, including you.

But in your mind that means he's sold his soul to the same devil you look to for sustenance. Well, maybe you're right Ray, but maybe you aren't. That's the thing about the future. Everybody thinks they know what will happen, but so few understand that anything is possible even what appears impossible today.

Any journey starts with the first step. If everyone had your insipid attitude, no one would bother to move because they'd believe incorrectly that their location wouldn't change. Tell that to the man who walked a thousand miles just to show he could.

Barack Obama has no business being this close to the presidency in the year 2008. You know it in your mind and in your bones, but yet he is. All is not as it was Ray. Everyone hasn't given up on hope like old, dying curmudgeons do. Rest in Peace, your day is done....

"You and I both know you didn't give Obama a snowball's chance in hell to win the nomination,"

It's more than that. Conspiracy theorist Ray said the election was "fixed"--his words--for Hillary Clinton.

I only read the headline and the first few sentences of the post, but I can predict exactly what happened. An article came out which said that American refineries have produced record amounts of diesel and distillates for export abroad. Then, the usual litany of left-wing retards rose to cacophonous levels, each outdoing the other in ignorance.

1. Europe is the world's number one consumer of diesel products, but a large percentage is refined here in the US for delivery there.
2. That greatly reduces our trade deficit, and adds thousands of high-paying US jobs.
3. The DR left will, predictably, use this to assume that any offshore drilling will mean that we're going to see higher prices instead of lower ones, and that if only Obama could get building our windmills with his 5 million new green jobs, nirvana would result.

That has nothing to do with whether stock trades create jobs or not. Obviously, if you sold your stock and invested into a business then you proving my argument. Only by removing your money from the stock market and investing into your company could that money actually create new jobs.

* * * *

Umm, no. The capital stock of a company represents real assets--factories, trucks, equipment. Were it to go down, because of large stock sales, it means that the enterprise itself is declining in value, which must be remedied either through asset sales, or curtailing growth plans.

A whole lot of stock has been sold in banks, and this has caused banks to stop lending, because their capital requirements couldn't support additional borrowers. Same is true with industrial companies, or services, it's just less obvious.

No charge for this installment of Finance 101.

"No charge for this installment of Finance 101."

Posted by rightisright

lol ~ gee thanks...

No charge for next NWO Oil bourse coming our way either ~ right?:>)

CONDOLEEZA RICE GIVES THE NOD TO ISRAELI ACTION AGAINST IRAN WHILE TWO MORE U.S. CARRIERS STEAM TO THE GULF.
By: Webmaster Tags: ISRAEL LINK::
GO TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE
US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice yesterday said that the US would not say no to an Israeli plan to attack Iran adding that Israel is a sovereign state inferring that the US would not interfere with Israeli plans.

Webmaster's Commentary:
.. even if they could!

lataan.blogspot.com

Oil companies have leases on many parcels of land that they can drill for oil at any time. All they want is to drill offshore and get a few billion in taxes to help support their poor old mothers who are forced to eat cat food to survive.

Ask the people who were invested in Enron
- Posted by Laj

What you didn't mention was that some of those people that were invested in Enron were the grunts that had their pension plans and retirement accounts with Enron.

When the stock started plummeting out of control, the Enron executives sold off their shares but prohibited normal workers from doing the same.

The executives take care of themselves and everybody else be damned.

The reality is the "$700,000,000,000 (billion) a year,is leaving the "pockets" of United States TaxPayers,by first being "price fixed" and then being siphoned off into the deep coffers of the Big American Oil companies and the Fascist,Right-Wing,Corporate Elite! All those greedy,war mongering bastards should be rounded up and summarily shot!!!

I only read the headline and the first few sentences of the post, but I can predict exactly what happened.

And you jumped to predictable conclusions without bothering to notice the arguments have been dead-on point.

Hey Dirtbag...

Obama gets his contributions from INDIVIDUALS not oil- connected bundlers like McCain has, ignatz.

And did you bother to notice another refutation of a McCain talking point LIE?

Obama has said he voted for the 2005 energy bill because it made the nation's largest ever investment in solar, wind and biodiesel. The Congressional Research Service says the oil and gas industry actually lost more money than it gained from the bill's tax and subsidy provisions.

Oh but Jurassic John says he voted against it because it gave too many breaks to Big Oil, like he was so principled in the matter. Turns out the bill didn't give ENOUGH of our tax money to suit his masters.

So he lied yet again unless you want to call the CRS dishonest.

< Why are trade deficits bad? Because foreigners can use their dollar to "buy up America."

Is there anything you Liberals won't complain about?!

Posted by member2586

Try and live month after month, year after year spending more than your income is and let us know how well that works out for you.

The executives take care of themselves and everybody else be damned.

Posted by rjgonzalez

I think Kenny is doing the backstroke in the eternal lake of fire right now.

I think he got his just due.

Porto Rico is a foreign country? Who would have guessed.

US oil product export breakdown, 2002 - 2007:

tonto.eia.doe.gov

Also, Petroleum Basic Statistics:

www.eia.doe.gov

Last thing we need to do is stop shipping finished oil products to other countries. I believe that the majority of oil producing countries actually don't refine their oil. They send out the raw product to us (and other countries) and we refine and sell it back to them. If we stop doing this, they will start refining their own product and then we will be in real trouble.

Why should we let the middle East and Venezuela and Mexico reap all of the rewards of the oil exporting? Does anyone ever get upset when Bill Gates and microsoft export their billions of dollars of products?? Does anyone care that Bill Gates is still the richest guy in the world, yet not a "big oil man." Quit fighting liberals versus conservatives and being so negative. Let the industries do what works and makes money. The earth isn't dying! and using oil isn't going to kill it! The money that "big oil" makes selling oil, will eventually result in research and development of alternatives. Why? Because there is money to be made. That is the only reason T Boone Pickens is trying to sell wind. He owns the largest wind farm in Texas and is also buying up (using iminent domain) all the water rights in his area. He isn't doing it for the environment, he's doing it to make money. It is all business. But I would rather him do it than the government. The government doesn't create jobs or pay taxes. I do agree we don't need to subsidize these big companies, but we can't tax them out of the country either....

The free market has failed the american people regarding natural resources. American mineral rights for america..no private hands.

Mr. Stalin, does that include farms, too?

I believe that the majority of oil producing countries actually don't refine their oil. They send out the raw product to us (and other countries) and we refine and sell it back to them.
- Posted by Laj

And my son believes that the tooth fairy leaves him money every time he loses a tooth. Doesn't make him right either.

If you had read the article, you would have seen that the exports went up by 33 percent. If we're only exporting the same amount as we get, the percent would have been 0.

Ummm, no. Laj's point was that they send crude here, for refining, then is returned as diesel and distillates. The US does import a lot of gasoline, refined in Mexico and Canada predominantly.

So the better question to ask is: how much of the finished product began overseas? And, for that matter, what's wrong with exporting gasoline, considering we're IMPORTING so much crude? Doesn't that BENEFIT our economy, to take raw material, and refine it to make it more valuable, and sell it abroad? Isn't that what the Chinese do, every day, to the ire and agony of the DR lefties?

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable