Democrats in their own words

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I know - that's the worst part about it (and if you express yourself in opposition to their beliefs, you might start to notice certain individuals treating you differently in other forums on this site...)

I hope that I don't do that too often...
I actually like Underdog's posts. His slant on politics, the NBA, and Judaism, and many other things is provocative. I might not agree, but I like to discuss things with people who think...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

seriously, if you think Republicans can bring Oil down to 2 dollars a gallon again you are nuts. The world demands too much of it and investors are making a ton of money off it..they'd never give that up.

Keep in mind gas WAS $2/gallon only 1 year ago. So what happened a year ago? What can we attribute the doubling in gas prices to? I'm not going to be overly simplistic and imply it's one single thing, but one thing I will say..... a little over a year ago, the Democrats took over Congress. What have they done to reduce gas costs? Bringing in oil execs for hearings hasn't worked.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Keep in mind gas WAS $2/gallon only 1 year ago. So what happened a year ago? What can we attribute the doubling in gas prices to? I'm not going to be overly simplistic and imply it's one single thing, but one thing I will say..... a little over a year ago, the Democrats took over Congress. What have they done to reduce gas costs? Bringing in oil execs for hearings hasn't worked.

Ergo the very effective political statement.

[wmbwinn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/...cN8Gti6r9eW7oF

Here's another example of the stupidity of government where they think they are helping us get along with higher fuel costs...

I'm not going to bore you with the details, but do you know what it costs to travel by Amtrak? If you can't afford gasoline, you definitely can't afford to travel Amtrak...

more wasted money on stupid projects...

only way this works is if the government then subsidizes the ticket expense to travel Amtrak...

more wasted money by a stupid government...

If Amtrak can't make this work in an uninterfered free economy, then Amtrak should just die and leave us alone

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/...cN8Gti6r9eW7oF

Here's another example of the stupidity of government where they think they are helping us get along with higher fuel costs...

I'm not going to bore you with the details, but do you know what it costs to travel by Amtrak? If you can't afford gasoline, you definitely can't afford to travel Amtrak...

more wasted money on stupid projects...

only way this works is if the government then subsidizes the ticket expense to travel Amtrak...

more wasted money by a stupid government...

If Amtrak can't make this work in an uninterfered free economy, then Amtrak should just die and leave us alone

The way I hear it, the government pretty much owns Amtrak. And yes, it is ridiculously expensive to ride their trains.

I talked to one wacko redneck who went on and on about how he won't ever ride Amtrak (despite his love for trains) due to the fact that Amtrak will not allow him to even as much as check his unloaded hunting rifle in his luggage aboard the train. He felt that his second-amendment rights were being viiiiiolated.

But aside from that, I do find it disappointing that this country doesn't already have high-speed rail from, say, Washington to New York. What have we been waiting for? I have heard that there are plans in the works for a Dallas-Houston-Austin rail service in the future. I certainly hope so!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Maybe WE should drill here.

The Pelosi Premium. Heh..

Ah those democrats...they continue to help us pay the gas bills.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber...l-bill-killed/

GOP Rep. John Peterson’s latest bid to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions, which I blogged earlier today here, was killed this afternoon by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment. It was a straight, party line vote.

Dems against:

Chair: Norman D. Dicks (WA)
James P. Moran (VA)
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)
John W. Olver (MA)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Tom Udall (NM)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Ed Pastor (AZ)
Dave Obey (WI), Ex Officio

Republicans for:

Ranking Member:
Todd Tiahrt (KS)
John E. Peterson (PA)
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio

The Republicans on the subcommittee vow to keep pressing the issue:

[Flacolaco]

How long before dem supporters are sacrificing too much for their families because of gas prices? How long before everyone in this country is begging for new drilling and refining?

How long before these stupid hippies can't even afford their cable package to watch MSNBC because they're paying the price for our government sitting on trillions of barrels of oil and doing nothing about it?

.
.
.
.

We can't tell how much oil we really have in the U.S. because all our dipsticks are in Washington D.C.

genius

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

How long before dem supporters are sacrificing too much for their families because of gas prices? How long before everyone in this country is begging for new drilling and refining?

How long before these stupid hippies can't even afford their cable package to watch MSNBC because they're paying the price for our government sitting on trillions of barrels of oil and doing nothing about it?

The stupid hippies collecting a welfare check won't ever care, because they get a free ride anwyays.

[dude1394]

Sad....but pretty spot on..

http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/08/0608/061308.html

As I said on the Hewitt show tonight, I feel as if Bizarro World is slowly leaking into ours, and one day we will see Superman and note he has that ugly grey faceted skin, and wonder when that happened. Well, we just didn’t pay attention to the signs. In Bizarro World, illegal foreign combatants are granted constitutional rights; in Bizarro World, people react to high gas prices and energy shortfalls by refusing to boost domestic capacity. You have John McCain nixing ANWAR drilling and lending his sonorous monotone to cap-and-trade; you have Obama noting that gas prices rose too quickly, which presumably means he would have favored a gradual rise to ninety-buck-a-tank fill-ups; you have Speaker Pelosi vamping on the popular memes:

3. We cannot drill our way out of this. We cannot, in other words, deal with shortages by increasing the supply. Presumably because it wouldn’t have an immediate effect? Well, then, there’s no point doing anything about global warming today or tomorrow, is there. Because it won’t forestall the inevitable day when we run out. Granted. So why eat today? You’ll be dead eventually. Because it won’t be enough in the end to depress prices enough. Yes, three-buck-a-gallon gas, five-buck-a-gallon: six of one, nine dozen of the other, especially if you’re being limo’d everywhere. Because we have oilmen in the White House boo hiss. Well: let’s look at who’s making out bandit-wise. According to this page, the profit in California on a gallon of gas is 51 cents – which includes, for some bizarre reason, “refinery costs.” Only government can make a chart that lumps costs into profits into the same wad. Total California taxes and fees: 52 cents. Add the Federal tax, and it’s 60 cents.

[dude1394]

If McCain doesn't grab ahold of this issue, he's a complete moron. Unfortunately I think he may be.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_572707.html

By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, June 15, 2008

Something else to think about next time you're feeding your Ford Mini-brontosaurus $80 worth of regular gasoline:

According to the federal Minerals Management Service, about 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are locked up and untouchable just off our shores.

"Locked up"? By whom? Who could be so stupid? So diabolical? So un-American?

Big Oil? The U.N? Those evil Exxon Republicans who took us to war for oil in Iraq?

Close. It's our cracked-up Congress -- mainly liberal Democrats who are beholden beyond reason to the religious left's most dangerous fundamentalist sect, wacko environmentalism.

For 27 years Democrats and Republicans have used a two-sentence rider in annual Interior Department appropriations bills to outlaw development of the vast oil and gas fields that we know exist within 200 miles of our coasts.

But Rep. John Peterson, a Republican from upstate Pennsylvania whose crusade to fix America's broken energy policy has brought him the interplanetary enmity of environmentalists, has made it his mission to slay that foolish rider.

All Peterson wants to do is get Congress to allow America to do what every other sensible modern country on Earth from Norway to New Zealand has been doing for decades -- open our deep-sea energy reserves to safe, environmentally sensitive development.

Peterson's latest attempt to kill the foolish rider was Wednesday at a subcommittee hearing when he offered an amendment to the Interior Department appropriations bill that would allow oil and gas drilling rigs to operate between 50 and 200 miles offshore -- so that no liberal's tender eyes can ever see them.

Given $140-a-barrel oil, Peterson thought he could win over two Democrats. But the final tally was 9-6 against him on straight party lines, Peterson said after the vote Wednesday from his office in Washington.

Despite his setback, Peterson remains an unabashed cheerleader of the increasingly popular "Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less" movement.

Most Democrats cling to shortsighted, economically fallacious arguments against offshore drilling, but Peterson says Canada is solidly on his side.

Canada, which he said thinks we are "crazy for locking up all our good stuff," is mad at us for not tapping our vast natural gas supplies. By not producing enough of our own natural gas, we drive up the North American price.

In fact, he said, for the last eight years the United States has paid the highest price in the world for natural gas -- about $12.50 per million Btu. Canada pays the second-highest price. South America, by the way, pays about $1.50.

Peterson will try again this week to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore drilling when the full 66-member House appropriations committee meets. All he needs is a majority of one -- and since his similar effort last year lost by only eight votes, he has hope.

"Americans are upset. If we can have a public discussion, if the press does its job -- not picking sides, just putting the facts our there -- and if we just have a factual debate, we will produce more energy.

"The American public is approaching 60 percent now in favor of drilling. If they understood this issue, they'd be 80 or 90 percent for drilling."

Only the enviro-radicals would still be opposed, he said. "And they don't want coal and gas. They don't want oil. They don't want nuclear -- and some don't want wind offshore if it's near their home."

[dude1394]

Oh I'd like that one a bunch.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5555

Boy, could I get behind a McCain-Giuliani ticket! That would really put New York and California in play. I will note the David Frum piece linked to does not once suggest picking Rudy - but someone has it in mind and I like it. In fact, knowing Frum is a far right ‘true’ conservative, I doubt he would like the idea of two moderate, pro-war candidates on the top of the ticket. But hey, this election has nothing to do with the far right - it is about whether the country goes full far left or moderate conservative. Those are the choices.

Oooppss...shoulda started a new thread I think.

[dude1394]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._democr_1.html

Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices
By William Tate
This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats' actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.

10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.

9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: "Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so."
A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn't that have been a good thing?

8) Insistence on alternative fuels One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards." By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.

7) Nuclear power Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.

The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.

Need I say more?

6) Coal "The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.

5) Refinery capacity "High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010," according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems' environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

4) Reduced competition With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers -- Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco -- happened on Clinton's watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton's two terms.

3) The Global Warming Myth At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari "described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions ... to address both issues simultaneously". As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 --the year that trading was initiated--and this year --when the trading expanded dramatically -- saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number...

2) Speculation "Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices ... it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation," writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically "were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.

1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:

-Promote new oil and gas drilling

-Build new nuclear plants

-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels

A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:

"President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.

Mr. Bush's plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals... for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies."

[The Bush plan] "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."


The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his plan was not adopted in 2001.

The Times account continued:

"Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers...Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives..."


Just as President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:

"World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said "exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."


But, as a later Times article notes, "the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan."

In other words, Democrats refused the President's plea to "break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates."

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

[wmbwinn]

Excellent article, Dude. Even if only 80% of it is unassailably accurate (and I think more than 80% is accurate), then it is quite damning to the Dem party.

But, no one cares about facts and logic.

We just need unspecified change in the form of a great speaker who can't speak about specifics.

[DirkFTW]

CHANGE my shorts

[dude1394]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602731_pf.html

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign and a break with environmental activists, even as he attempts to win the support of independents and moderate Democrats. Since becoming the presumptive GOP nominee in March, McCain has presented himself as a friend of the environment by touting his plans to combat global warming and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the Everglades.

Representatives of several environmental groups criticized him for backing an idea they said would endanger the nation's most environmentally sensitive waters.

"It's disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.

Sierra Club political director Cathy Duvall said McCain "is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn't." The group began running radio commercials yesterday that criticize McCain's environmental record in the battleground state of Ohio.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama joined the criticism, calling the idea of lifting the ban the wrong answer to out-of-control energy prices. "John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.

[DirkFTW]

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama joined the criticism, calling the idea of lifting the ban the wrong answer to out-of-control energy prices. "John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.

Knights of Columbus, we have been blind! STOP BUSH'S DRILLING! Can't you see we're in this mess because of everything he has done?

Wait, what do you mean we aren't drilling?

[jefelump]

Misguided approach backed by President Bush? Is that the one we have now (which to quote the Dems is "more of the same"), or the one the Dems killed in Congress 7 years ago, that to date has not been implemented?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Misguided approach backed by President Bush? Is that the one we have now (which to quote the Dems is "more of the same"), or the one the Dems killed in Congress 7 years ago, that to date has not been implemented?

Exactly as Jefelump said. There is no such thing as a Bush policy to complain about. Bush never got his plan implemented. I wish he did...

[mcsluggo]

no... bush senior got his policy in place: the executive order banning coastal oil exploration, in 1990.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no... bush senior got his policy in place: the executive order banning coastal oil exploration, in 1990.

I knew there was another reason I didn't vote for him a second time.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no... bush senior got his policy in place: the executive order banning coastal oil exploration, in 1990.

In 1990, gas was around 1 dollar per gallon [give or take] and no one had any reason to view the risk/benefit of offshore drilling as favorable.

But, we're talking about a different situation now. Now, the risk/benefit evaluation points towards offshore drilling. And, now, when we need to push forward, it is not Bush who is in the way. It is the Dem party in Congress.

[Flacolaco]

If drilling for oil is not the solution to the problem of "we need more oil" then what is, Mr Obama?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

If drilling for oil is not the solution to the problem of "we need more oil" then what is, Mr Obama?

Mr. Obama does not talk about specifics. He is just highly skilled at pointing out problems.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

If drilling for oil is not the solution to the problem of "we need more oil" then what is, Mr Obama?

Tomato ethanol. That also solves our salmonella problem.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flacolaco
If drilling for oil is not the solution to the problem of "we need more oil" then what is, Mr Obama?

Tomato ethanol. That also solves our salmonella problem.


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to DirkFTW again...
That is very funny stuff!!!

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

In 1990, gas was around 1 dollar per gallon [give or take] and no one had any reason to view the risk/benefit of offshore drilling as favorable.

But, we're talking about a different situation now. Now, the risk/benefit evaluation points towards offshore drilling. And, now, when we need to push forward, it is not Bush who is in the way. It is the Dem party in Congress.

No, it wasn't W that was in the way... but he has (had) largely deffered to Jeb on the issue... a leading opponent of coastal drilling.



As I have said before: I have no fundamental opposition to offshore drilling (although I DO wanna regulate the crap out of it... the cost of a spill is a public cost, and thus really wouldn't figure prominantly into ANY company's internal cost calculations--- and since it is public territoty, i wanna charge the full value of using it---- and finanlly, (and perhaps most importantly) I think that what will be extracted is relatively small potatoes, and won't have a huge effect on the market one way or another.

On the other hand, Nigeria's statement this week that they plan to double production by 2010 (bringing online an additional 2 mil bpd) might do something (a little something)... if they can actually achieve their target.

[wmbwinn]

There was a Congressional ploy/strategy to allow States to bypass the Federal regulation that forbade offshore drilling. That ploy was voted down in the Senate. But, that ploy is still alive and well in the plans of McCain and many other Republicans.

So, when you hear W defer to Jeb, that is the background. The Reps want to give the states the right to pursue the oil and do so on their own grounds. This way, you can allow
California, Oregon, and Washington, and the east coast states as well as the Gulf coast states to decide themselves what to do and how to do it and how to regulate it and how much the state gets paid for allowing it.

If Jeb doesn't want to drill, then Jeb's opposition doesn't disallow Louisiana or Texas from going after it.

[DirkFTW]

"The people I represent can't understand how we can possibly let China end up with rights to our oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico because we say we're not going to do it and they say, 'OK, we'll do it and we'll work with Cuba, if we have to, to do it,'" said U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tennessee. "That's really asinine."

Link

Tennessee and Texas: More in common than just UT.

[dude1394]

Don't do drugs and don't vote democrat.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...overnment.html

Video HotAir
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee...."We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

Here again is the Democratic record on US energy--
Over the past 30 years:

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

Over the past 30 years Democrats have created "No Zones" for US energy exploration and development:

(Republican Senator Craig put together this map in 2006.)
As Americans pay more for gas than ever under this Congress--
Democrats continue to vote against energy development and exploration.

Yesterday, President Bush urged the Democratic Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling in the US. America is the only country that will not tap its own energy reserves but has the gall to demand foreign regimes to up their oil output.

In response to this request Democrats proposed a government takeover of the oil industry!
Maybe this was their plan all along?

[DirkFTW]

So that's Big D's answer to Big Oil? HostileTakeoverFTW!!!

[purplefrog]

Question:
The governors of California, North Carolina, and New Jersey have said if given the choice they would not want offshore drilling because they are concerned it would negatively affect the local economy based on tourism. Gov Crist of Florida seems in favor of it but has admitted that the state legislators might not go along. If the moratorium on offshore drilling was lifted do we give these states a choice or do the Feds (not sure how this would work) force these states to comply? And if these coastlines are off limits (states choice) does it still make sense to move forward with offshore drilling since the majority of the available land is not available?

I continue to wonder if the Republican leadership isn't more interested in trying to mold public opinion against the Dems rather than legitimately and pragmatically addressing the real issue (energy costs). Not that I particularly mind an anti-Dem attitude but these things have a way of biting you in the behind if you overreach. Imo, credibility is important and if it looks like lifting the ban won't significantly increase offshore drilling (individual states decide against it) then what's the point?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

So that's Big D's answer to Big Oil? HostileTakeoverFTW!!!

Uh, no it isn't. But since when has THAT mattered?

[rabbitproof]

http://www.macroworldinvestor.com/m/...y&id=311018201

AMERICA CANNOT DRILL ITS WAY TO LOWER ENERGY PRICES OR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

America Consumes 25 percent of the World's Oil, But Has Just 3 Percent of the World's Oil Reserves. Americans consume 25 percent of the world's produced oil, but our nation holds less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. [NRDC ]

INCREASED OFFSHORE DRILLING WOULD NOT LOWER GAS PRICES

Bush Administration's Own Energy Information Agency Found Outer Continental Shelf Drilling Would Have No Significant Impact on Gas Prices "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." [Energy Information Administration, 2007 ]

On President Bush's Watch, Offshore Drilling Has Increased, But the Price of Gas Has Skyrocketed. The number of offshore drilling permits issued and wells have increased dramatically from 3,000 permits and wells in 2000 to nearly 8,000 permits and 6,000 wells by 2006. Over the same time period gas prices have skyrocketed from $1.25 per gallon in January 2000 to over $4 per gallon today. [Bureau of Land Management, answers to questions submitted 3/1/07; EIA Historical Data]

OIL COMPANIES ARE NOT DRILLING IN AREAS CURRENTLY UNDER LEASE

Just 21 Percent of Outer Continental Shelf Leases Are in Production. There are 7,740 active leases in the outer continental shelf and only 1,655 are in production. [Department of Interior]

Just 19 Percent of Outer Continental Shelf Acres Under Lease Are Producing. There are over 41,000,000 acres in the outer continental shelf have been leased for oil drilling, yet only 8,123,000 acres are in production.

*33 Million Outer Continental Shelf Acres Under Lease Are NOT Being Drilled. There are 33 million acres of the federal OCS lands that are under lease but are not producing. [Department of Interior]

Of 45.5 Million Acres of Federal Lands Leased to Oil and Gas Companies, 31 Million Acres Are Not Producing. There are 45.5 million acres of federal onshore lands currently leased by the oil and gas industry-but there are over 31 million acres not producing. [Department of Interior]

MOST RECOVERABLE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS IS OPEN TO DRILLING

79 Percent of Recoverable Offshore Oil Is Open to Drilling. Currently 79 percent of America's technically recoverable offshore oil reserves are open for leasing, while just 21 percent are closed to drilling. [Minerals Management Service, 2006]

82 Percent of Recoverable Offshore Natural Gas Is Open to Drilling. Currently 82 percent of America's technically recoverable offshore natural gas reserves are open for leasing, while just 18 percent are closed to drilling. [Minerals Management Service, 2006]


----

Ironically, this is all very Avery-ian. The scheme isn't working? Just play harder! Dig deeper and fight through it!

Add to the fact, it would take years to develop these sort of wells/refineries, we should seek alternative energy sources/solutions and cut down demand - not seek to feed the need in a way that would not be sustainable or meaningful. I also want to add, if economists and experts would predict a positive-ROI meaningful decline, I'd support more drilling so long as we explore alternative energies in the meantime.

[rabbitproof]

Also, why drill here when we can drill there?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...-Oil-Deals.php
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...FrW_QD91D7GCG0
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-2703,00.html

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

America Consumes 25 percent of the World's Oil, But Has Just 3 Percent of the World's Oil Reserves. Americans consume 25 percent of the world's produced oil, but our nation holds less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. [NRDC ]

I think that's a little misleading. It doesn't mean we're short 22 percent of our required oil. It means of the oil that's being produced (I don't have a number), we need 25%. Of the total world-wide source for the oil that's being produced (I don't have the number), we have at least 3%. I am fairly certain that we are not consuming 8x more than our proven oil reserves.

Also, I am curious about how much oil is under the opened areas. It does the government little good for me to open my backyard to oil drilling. They're gonna find my pet rabbit's grave and some pool piping.

Even so, how about drilling and nuclear power?

McCain Sets Goal of 45 New Nuclear Reactors by 2030

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: June 19, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he wanted 45 new nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030, a course he called “as difficult as it is necessary.”
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Mark Schiefelbein/Associated Press

John McCain fielding a question Wednesday at a town-hall-style meeting at Missouri State University in Springfield.

In his third straight day of campaign speechmaking about energy and $4-a-gallon gasoline, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, told the crowd at a town-hall-style meeting at Missouri State University that he saw nuclear power as a clean, safe alternative to traditional sources of energy that emit greenhouse gases. He said his ultimate goal was 100 new nuclear plants.

Mr. McCain has long promoted nuclear reactors, but Wednesday was the first time that he specified the number of plants he envisioned.

Currently there are 104 reactors in the country supplying some 20 percent of electricity consumed. No new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States since the 1970s.

“China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades,” Mr. McCain said in this pocket of Missouri that is reliably Republican. “Across Europe there are 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. And if all of these nations can find a way to carry out great goals in energy policy, then I assure you that the United States is more than equal to the challenge.”

Although there has been a shift of opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power — it is clean and far safer than at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 — most environmentalists are skeptical of the latest claims by its advocates. They also say that no utility will put its own financing into building a plant unless the federal government lavishly subsidizes it.

“Wall Street won’t invest in these plants because they are too expensive and unreliable, so Senator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts,” said Daniel J. Weiss, who heads the global warming program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal research group.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s chief domestic policy adviser, said Mr. McCain had arrived at the goal of 45 as consistent with his desire to expand nuclear power, “but not so large as to be infeasible given permitting and construction times.”

Article Link

Slashdot comments

[rabbitproof]

Yeah, I hope nobody read that like we're short 22% of our required oil.

I'm okay with nuclear power. Drilling is its own thing though. It has to justify itself and thus far it doesn't seem like a smart or necessary investment.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Yeah, I hope nobody read that like we're short 22% of our required oil.

I'm okay with nuclear power. Drilling is its own thing though. It has to justify itself and thus far it doesn't seem like a smart or necessary investment.

That's true. If we can do it all with nuclear, then why drill? Hadn't quite thought that far. =p

[rabbitproof]

You can't control what the oil man want. ;p

---

Also wanted to ask, what do you think about drilling/nuclear?

[DirkFTW]

Dangit, he's using the Josh Howard defense. We're screwed!

[dude1394]

AMERICA CANNOT DRILL ITS WAY TO LOWER ENERGY PRICES OR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

INCREASED OFFSHORE DRILLING WOULD NOT LOWER GAS PRICES

America can't drill their way out of this.
America can't solar energy their way out of this.
America can't coal their way out of this.
America can't nuclear energy their way out of this.
America can't bio-fuel their way out of this.
America can't conserve their way out of this.
America can't windfall tax their way out of this.
America can't sue their way out of this.
America can't socialize refineries their way out of this.
America can't ethanol their way out of this.

So tiring. NOTHING is going to replace cheap oil overnight, but NOT drilling for more oil where possible is ridiculous, only children can be so naive. When there is a shortage of a commodity you don't stick your head in the sand and go "I sure wish it wasn't so high". You go get more of that commodity in all kinds of ways. The anti-growth crowd pick off one sector and claim it won't fix the problem, never doing the math to understand that their vaunted renewables are a drop in the bucket and are more costly than the oil today.

The liberals and democrats in this country have their head so far up their rear ends on this that they somehow think that they dont' have to make hard choices. Guess what bringing gas prices down 25cents is GOOD. It's good for everyone and saying that it will take 10 years is the worst argument imaginable.

It takes 10 years so do.....NOTHING? Am I missing something, is there some sort of magic energy source out there that the liberals know about that will come on line in a few years??

Of course not, unless they could bottle and run cars on childishness and irresponsibility.