On 2008-08-13 19:05:51 -0400, Shrikeback@
gmail.com said:
> On Aug 12, 7:44Â pm, The Trucker
verizon.net> wrote:>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:14:29 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
>>>>> Â 2. Pelosi's actions have demonstrated that she does not intend to
> allow a vote on drilling.
>>
>>>> Non oil state GOP politicians don't really want Democrats to cave
>>>> anytime soon either.
>>
>>>> As with abortion, the issue is more effective for Repugs to
>>>> perpetually dangle in front of the ignorant.
>>
>>> No. It'll be far more beneficial to allow the drilling to
>>> begin as soon as possible, such that the job creation
>>> begins as well.
>>
>> Does the lying ever stop? Â Renewable energy creates much more employmen
> t
>> opportunity than continuing the oil monopoly. Â
>
> Even if that were true, where would the lie be
> in my post above? Remember the troll KKKahill
> claimed that Repugs have an interest in holding
> this in front of the voters as a perpetual carrot,
> like banning abortion, or (for democrats) nationalized
> health care. Dangle dangle. I merely pointed out
> that the benefits to passing this are undeniable,
> and passing it will necessarily be good for the pugs.
>
>> The price of fuel at the
>> pump may be higher for renewable fuel but that cost is paid out  primar
> ily
>> as wages and those wages stay right here in the the USA.
>
> To what renewable fuels do you refer? Corn ethanol? The
> great agricultural pork barrel fuel? I mean you did use the
> phrase "at the pump". Perhaps you are referring to some
> other source of biofuel, and that's fine. But how does off-shore
> drilling prevent such development?
>
>> I am not going to
>> defend the "broken window" fallacy. Â
>
> That's good, because the sort of energy that would
> create the most jobs would be created by labor itself.
> Perhaps in a treadmill power plant. The workers hop
> on the treadmill for a few hours and their leg power
> turns the turbines.
>
>> But don't blather about job creation
>> from offshore drilling.
>
> Offshore drilling will create jobs. It's a self-evident
> truth. I am not sure what you want done that will
> produce more jobs. Do windmills require more labor
> than oil rigs? Do Chernobyls? Do solar plants? Do
> hydroelectric dams? And how does off-shore drilling
> prevent the construction of more Chernobyls?
>
>>>> If Dems actually supported drilling ANWR then prices will still resume
>>>> their spiral and what would Repug talking points be then?
>>
>>> Actually, beginning such drilling would encourage
>>> the bursting of the current oil bubble. Â How do we
>>> know there's a bubble? Â Because the rate of
>>> increase has been greater than exponential.
>>
>> I have a news flash for ya, pal. Â We, the Democrats, with the threat to
>> sell oil out of the SPR and the threat to restore actual regulation to
>> prevent manipulation by hedge funds have already popped the bubble. Â Yo
> u
>> are a little too late with the fascist pig prancing.
>
> The oil bubble has a ways to go. Anyway, no other country
> on the planet restrains itself from harvesting the oil it has
> within its reach. That is purely an American Greenola luxury.
> But I find it ironic that you call disagreement "fascist
> pig prancing" when you are the one who just called for
> greater regulation.
>
> As Mussolini put it, "Nothing against the State, nothing
> above the State, nothing outside the State." But I guess
> it's like Orwell observed, "fascist" doesn't mean anything
> more than "I disagree with it."
>
>> But I can't help but notice how the "We want an up and down vote on the
>> ban" has changed to "We want a comprehensive energy bill". Â The
>> Republicans have been bitch slapped by reality. They are trying to salvag
> e
>> what they can.
>
> Check the polls. Do Americans support off-shore drilling or not?
> Then, if anyone has been bitch slapped it is Pelosi, who, though
> she will grandstand for the San Francisco Greenolas about
> opposition to off-shore drilling, is encouraging Democrats who
> are up for election to support it.
>
>>>> "You ignorant poor will have to cycle for the next 20 years?"
>>
>>> That should make the Greenshirts happy. Â We'll get an
>>> epidemic of erectile dysfunction among the poor, and
>>> unless we nationalize health care (which ain't going
>>> to happen, unless someone wants to face the mother
>>> of all recessions), the birth rate of the poor will go
>>> down. Â Paul Ehrlich will be sated.
>>
>> This is too moronic for comment other than it is moronic.
>>>> The bluff is easy to call. Â A provision could be bundled into a
>>>> comprehensive energy bill that allows more drilling but if the price
>>>> of oil tops, say, $180/bbl in 3 years then the drilling halts and a
>>>> hefty fuel tax-rebate program becomes effective.
>>
>>> Heh, why would the drilling halt when the price became so
>>> beneificial to the driller? Â That makes about as much sense
>>> as the rest of your goofy economic creationism.
>>
>> I actually agree on this one. Â The tax and rebate system should start n
> ow
>
> I know you guys believe in this one religiously. I see no
> reason for anyone to support it, unless they just want some
> free money for doing nothing. What's wrong with Earned
> Income Credits, which gives the working poor a negative
> income tax rate?
>
>>>> How would Repugs oppose such a bill?
>>
>>>> "You ignorant poor will have to cycle for the next 20 years?"
>>
>>> Maybe the poor aren't ignorant enough to believe
>>> in tax cut recessions or fundamentalist Georgism.
>>
>> The current economic disaster is a Republican tax cut creation. Â
>
> Horseshit.
>
>> We were
>> doing pretty well until the Gingrich capital gains tax cut. Â Then we ha
> d a
>> stock market bubble. Â
>
> After the nineties boom. Funny, KKKahill always blames the
> nineties boom on Clinton tax hikes. Or something. Not the
> Contract on America.
>
> It's also funny that Obama wants to increase capital gains
> (which affects the middle class too) even if that hike is
> projected to reduce revenues. What's the purpose of hiking
> a tax if not to increase revenues?
>
>> Then we had the repeal of Glass-Steagal and the
>> refusal of the Fed to control the money creating investment bankers and
>> wall street wankers and that created the housing bubble. And now we have
> a
>> short lived commodities bubble. Â Republicans blow bubbles. Â That's wh
> at
>> they do.
>
> Oh please. Surely you must remember
> the commodities bubble of the late seventies.
Here I go again.
1. The cost of oil primer 101
a. Reasons for increase
*** 14%% devaluation of US dollar this year alone***
*** All oil producing middle eastern countries have there
currency tied to US dollar***
*** Increased demand from emerging economies )China / India)***
*** Reduced domestic output of oil from 80%% of our needs in
1970's to about 20%% need today***
***Increased cost due to the addition of methanol into biodiesel
and fuel***
***The oil companies and President Bush are artificially keeping
prices high, the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer
b. Who to blame
***14%% Devaluation of the dollar / Both Democrats and
Republicans, aside from small
fluctuations occurring in the money markets only real
reason money is devalued is
when governments spend more money than they take in and
then print more money
to cover the costs*** Congress / Democratic , Senate /
Pres Republican, neither group
cut spending to match so their both equally to blame.***
Before you democrats get to giddy and blame this on Iraq
war cost, war to date has cost
about 1 trillion dollars, not including this an additional
6.6 trillion has been added to the
national debt by domestic spending programs submitted in
must sign bills. Shame on
Bush for not vetoing these bills submitted by Democratic
congress which submits budget.
***Since oil producing countries have seen their own currencies
devalued by 14%% and their
actual profits from oil decreased by 14%% the market has
corrected accordingly showing
that about 28%% of the cost of oils increase can be
attributed to this (Don't see the press
lettin the consumer know this, both parties don't want the blame.)
***Increased demand for a product has always driven up cost,
only cure, less demand or
more product***
***Reduced Domestic Output/ This is firmly attributed to the
Democrats***
Points:
* Oil companies have 68 million acres they can currently drill on
1. Most of this 68 million acres is yet unexplored
2. Of the viable drilling sites, almost all are under
some sort of litigation blocking
drilling to to environmental impact lawsuits from
greenie lawyers (A very big
Democratic Party Contributor)
3. Many of the sites are not financially profitable to drill
* If we drilled we wouldn't see results in 10-20 years for
price reductions
1. Oil companies all agree almost all deposits with
high yields could be exploited at
the rate of about 20%% online per year ending with
complete utilization in 5 years.
2. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats initially were saying
5 years also until they realized
the public thought this was acceptable, then they
changed their mantra to 10-20 years.
This is so obviously a lie its remarkable people
buy into it. Just look at old press releases
for the truth in this.
*We are saving our pristine shorelines from
environmental damage.
1. Cuba is allready leasing ocean sites to France,
Germany and China who then are
drilling shafts laterally into US territory to
extract oil. So, the rigs are there whether
we drill in the gulf or not. I guess US companies
providing US jobs and paying US taxes
are evil and we should thank China and the others
for taking the oil out of our grasp
thus reducing our temptation to go get it.
***Increased cost due to the addition of methanol into
biodiesel and fuel/ Democrats ***
1. Democrats put a 70 billion dollar year subsidy
into war spending bill for corn methanol
production for alternative renewable fuel production.
This has:
* Increased the cost of standard and diesel
fuels by a couple of %% as it costs more
to produce than oil.
* Reduced the amount of wheat being planted so
the cost of wheat went from about 3$
bushel to almost 12$ bushel with subsequent
increases in corn based livestock
feeds, this has caused food prices in US to
rise almost 24%% over 3 years. By the way,
most end product food producers have been
biting the bullet and not charging the
public for increased cost of transportation,
this is coming to an end and analysts are
predicting another 6-8%% increase in food next
year just from that.
*Back to our third world friends, since most of
the 3rd world relies on cheap grain
and the average 3rd world household spends
80%% of its earnings on food, when the
cost of grain increased 400%% they immediately
couldn't afford food and their has been
massive food riots and starvation in over 30
countries worldwide due to this. You
don't see the liberal press taking the
democrats to task on this even though in a rare
agreement with a United Nations Statement
they stated that this is the single most
preventable act of criminal negligence in
modern history. I guess 10-20 million starving
niggers and gooks isn't worth risking our
planets environment over. I am not really
racist, I just used this to illustrate that
actions truly speak louder than words for all
the Democratic Politically Correct Bullshit
about equality really is applied.
*** The oil companies are rigging prices***
1. Bullshit
a. Never has an oil company based in US ever
been convicted of or shown to be guilty
of price manipulation by any congressional
investigation from the 1970's up.
b. It has always been found that prices were
always based on conditions of the free
market
c. Oil companies depending on grade make 3-6
cents per gallon, if all grades of gas
sold for 4$ gallon their return on
investment is .75 to 1.5%%. Most people make more
on their interest from their bank accounts.
I can see the greed!
d. The American Congress depending on type of
fuel (Diesel / Gasoline...) adds
18-24 cents per gallon tax. This is 400%%
greater than oil companies profit.
e. Congress also taxes oil companies at the 50%%
rate on their profits.
f. Even with this for example Exxon Mobil put
30 billion back into economy for
drilling equipment, R/D and exploration.
g. So some quick math using Exxon/Mobil as an example
*Exxon/Mobil made 110 billion profit*
*Exxon/Mobil Reinvested 30 billion of that
profit back into US economy
*People with 401k retirement accounts saw
there wealth rise along with other
shareholders, those fucking greedy evil
people (By the way, I make 35K/year
and my 401k has oil stock, I guess I'm
too fuckin rich eh!
*US government took in:
110 billion from 50%% tax rate on oil
producing companies
385 billion from average of 18-24%% fuel tax
Total, 495 billion or about 1/2 trillion
dollars from Exxon/Mobil
*The Democrats want to tax oil companies
for their windfall profits
thus reducing the value of American
Citizens retirement accounts, screwing
up the economy like Carter did in the
late 80's because governments don't
steal (Unless your a democrat) profits
from legitimate businesses which
caused hyper inflation and resulted in
his not being elected a 2nd term.
Boy do I look forward to that 1000$
Barak is going to give me
h. Democrats actually want higher oil prices:
* Green technologies cost more so unless
gas remains high these technologies
aren't really viable.
* Keeps the greenies firmly under
democratic control with their big donations
(Who says special interests are dead,
both parties got-em)
* They are willing to sacrifice your job,
your lifestyle, your savings and ultimately
your freedom to promote the green
agenda. Remember, If all the big carbon
footprint technologies are eliminated,
what will then be the largest carbon
footprint on the planet, why life of
course. Who will ration and manage that.
*To Ensure this John Conyers Democrat
Michigan has proposed a 50 cent per
gallon tax on fuel to apply this to
renewable energy, This :
1. Keeps gas prices high
2. Will raise your cost of food yet
again in a struggling economy
3. Will kill any economic growth that
yet is surviving this economic slump
4. Is actually suppoorted by many
democratic pundits, just watch the news, you will
see them.
Oh by the way, did I mention that Nancy
Pelosi has invested in T. Boone Pickens
plan to the tune of 150,000. Good for her
Too Bad T. Boone Pickens is providing
some poor information to sell his wind
power.
Nothing wrong with either of the above
but, a TV 30 second infomercial is not
necessarily accurate and is highly biased.
Wind Power, Solar, Nuclear, Oil, Coal,
utilize all we have
Maybe Al Gore and Nancy can hook up
flying their private jets for a pow wow
in LA while Al looks at the oil rigs
off the Long Beach Coast from the company
he owns stock in.
Al I am ashamed (Yes true, not fiction)
