• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President Obama has a hard time selling his accomplishments and fuel policies

OhIsee.Then said:
The oil companies buy the leases but don't drill because they control the supply that way, and these areas are expensive to drill in compared to others.
Click to expand...

After they pay for the leases, they must apply for permits to do the actual drilling. This administration is hostile to energy production and bogs the permit requests down in bureaucratic red tape while complaining about inaction by the oil companies. It is the uncertainty of dealing with this administration that makes everyone nervous and drives up the price.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
A US Dollar that is owned by a US citizen that is spent on BP oil pumped from a US leased platform in the Gulf of Mexico goes into the same place as any oil BP pumps anywhere. BTY I made a profit on BP stock I bought when it tumbled during the stupid blowout in the gulf then sold later. How is that for keeping a dollar here in the US?
Click to expand...

Because the ‘US leased platform in the Gulf of Mexico’ don’t extract oil without people, Americans who work on these platforms. So US dollars are being spent by US consumers that go back into American’s pockets in the form of salary. That is how it stays in the US. Of course some of it DOES go out of country but some does not. Is the oil produced in ME, Canada, Venezuela, etc. extracted utilizing an American worker? Some portion of this argument HAS to evolve around AMERICAN workers.

Yes. You are talking about refining it, right? I think we refine more than we use; but, this isn't where the big money in oil is. I think it will be good to build that pipeline for the Canadian oil sands oil; but, only if we insist on moving it out of that area we should protect. It will cost a bit more % wise. In MI where we live we have had oil leaks from pipelines that were supposed to be well monitored but weren't into a popular river. The companies can't clean it up because it costs too much. So now the river is polluted, done.
Click to expand...

No, I am speaking of crude oil production. Refined products is another matter but of similar theme. These refined products are also ‘manufactured’ by American workers. The wages paid to these workers secures US wealth from leaving this country. Said refined products being EXPORTED is actually accruing foreign wealth INTO this country, which is a good thing, you agree?

Further, your leak position is valid but there are risks with ANY endeavor. Because cars have wrecks that kill people should we abolish driving them? People get killed by trains, should we abolish them? Planes crash, food spoils, etc., etc. While the analogy is extreme it is relevant to your position. Where does one draw the line?
 
Diogenes said:
After they pay for the leases, they must apply for permits to do the actual drilling. This administration is hostile to energy production and bogs the permit requests down in bureaucratic red tape while complaining about inaction by the oil companies. It is the uncertainty of dealing with this administration that makes everyone nervous and drives up the price.
Click to expand...

Did you forget the links? Where is the support for your claim that the administration is dragging its feet on permit requests?
 
Dickieboy said:
Because the ‘US leased platform in the Gulf of Mexico’ don’t extract oil without people, Americans who work on these platforms. So US dollars are being spent by US consumers that go back into American’s pockets in the form of salary. That is how it stays in the US. Of course some of it DOES go out of country but some does not. Is the oil produced in ME, Canada, Venezuela, etc. extracted utilizing an American worker? Some portion of this argument HAS to evolve around AMERICAN workers.



No, I am speaking of crude oil production. Refined products is another matter but of similar theme. These refined products are also ‘manufactured’ by American workers. The wages paid to these workers secures US wealth from leaving this country. Said refined products being EXPORTED is actually accruing foreign wealth INTO this country, which is a good thing, you agree?
Click to expand...
I don't have an exact number of jobs would be created, but the dollar value of the jobs are small relative to the dollar value of the oil that is used. You're also changing the issue. They are high paying jobs. But I don't agree since the dollar magnitude of the jobs is relatively small.

Further, your leak position is valid but there are risks with ANY endeavor. Because cars have wrecks that kill people should we abolish driving them? People get killed by trains, should we abolish them? Planes crash, food spoils, etc., etc. While the analogy is extreme it is relevant to your position. Where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...
No, let me use your analogy. Running a oil pipeline through a preserve area or along a river because it would be cheaper is like driving with brakes that are starting to fail and not repairing them.
 
Dickieboy said:
And why is it a sure thing?
Click to expand...

Because since 2010, the GOP has openly waged war on hispanics, seniors, women and the working class, and the King of the 1% will be their champion in the upcoming election during a period of the most wealth inequality since just before the Great Depression.

Edit: May the Lord have mercy on their souls! :cool:
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Did you forget the links? Where is the support for your claim that the administration is dragging its feet on permit requests?
Click to expand...

Are you really unaware of how much production on federal lands has dropped during this administration?
 
Catawba said:
Because since 2010, the GOP has openly waged war on hispanics, seniors, women and the working class, and the King of the 1% will be their champion in the upcoming election during a period of the most wealth inequality since just before the Great Depression.

Edit: May the Lord have mercy on their souls! :cool:
Click to expand...

And yet the debt keeps climbing. And people keep asking for more and more. I guess the current adminstration can just print more money. Our debtors don't want to be paid back. We can just file for Chapter 7. It's done in all the best circles.
 
Diogenes said:
Are you really unaware of how much production on federal lands has dropped during this administration?
Click to expand...

That would be a diversion from the fact that you have nothing to back up your claim?
 
Billy the Kid said:
And yet the debt keeps climbing.
Click to expand...

The GOP turned down the president's offer to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of increased revenues. The Affordable Health Care Act will save $500 billion over the next 10 years and the president has called for cuts in military spending.

And people keep asking for more and more.
Click to expand...

I reject Romney's pledge to increase our most wasteful spending.

I guess the current adminstration can just print more money. Our debtors don't want to be paid back. We can just file for Chapter 7. It's done in all the best circles.
Click to expand...

Actually, the fact is inflation is at historic lows. It will take fiscal responsibility by the new congress after November to work with Obama to both cut spending and increase tax rates on the wealthiest, as that is the only way we have significantly reduced our deficit in the last 30 years.
 
Catawba said:
The Affordable Health Care Act will save $500 billion over the next 10 years
Click to expand...

Huh?

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period — about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf

You say 'save' CBO says 'cost'...what am I missing?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
No, let me use your analogy. Running a oil pipeline through a preserve area or along a river because it would be cheaper is like driving with brakes that are starting to fail and not repairing them.
Click to expand...

Your use of my analogy seems to miss the point. You compare a pipeline that has not been built to a car that one already owns and is driving. Please help me understand. I THINK your point would be more precise if you stated 'it would be like building a pipeline and not maintaining it is like driving with brakes that are starting to fail and not repairing them'. But this lack of maintenance would only be necessitaed AFTER it was built...?

And please since I am 'changing the issue' remind me again what the issue is.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
Huh?

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period — about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf

You say 'save' CBO says 'cost'...what am I missing?
Click to expand...

I had not seen that report. I note they state the net cost will be $50 billion less over the next ten years than estimated in last years report.

The report makes it clear that eventually we will have to go to a single payer system as the Heritage Foundation alternative passed by Congress is just a bandaid.

At least though, as the CBO plan that you referenced states: it will reduce the number of nonelderly people with health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million people in 2016 and subsequent years.

"Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce
the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million
to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million
nonelderly residents uninsured in those years (see Table 3, at the end of this
report). The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise
from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent by 2022. According to the current
estimates, from 2016 on, between 20 million and 23 million people will receive
coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and 16 million to 17 million
people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. Also, 3 million to 5 million fewer
people will have coverage through an employer compared with the number under
prior law."

Not as good as a single payer system, but better than what we had!
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
You're missing the rest of the CBO's report, apparently.
Click to expand...

No, I read the entire report. Can you answer my question and explain 'what am I missing'?
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I read the entire report. Can you answer my question and explain 'what am I missing'?
Click to expand...

Sure, I'd be glad to. The CBO previously said that Obamacare will result in a deficit REDUCTION of $210 billion over ten years. In their new report they said that the government's net cost will be about $50 billion LESS than previously estimated. In other words, repealing Obamacare would INCREASE the debt by approximately $260 billion.
 
AdamT said:
Sure, I'd be glad to. The CBO previously said that Obamacare will result in a deficit REDUCTION of $210 billion over ten years. In their new report they said that the government's net cost will be about $50 billion LESS than previously estimated. In other words, repealing Obamacare would INCREASE the debt by approximately $260 billion.
Click to expand...


What is the $1.1t net cost they are speaking of?
 
AdamT said:
Sure, I'd be glad to. The CBO previously said that Obamacare will result in a deficit REDUCTION of $210 billion over ten years. In their new report they said that the government's net cost will be about $50 billion LESS than previously estimated. In other words, repealing Obamacare would INCREASE the debt by approximately $260 billion.
Click to expand...
First off... This is the same CBO that tries to pass off the problems with Obama's deficits on Bush, instead of on Obama where it appropriately should be placed. Furthermore other independent agencies are increasing the costs of ACA... which is more appropriate since the ACA will likely result in increased healthcare costs, which would then in turn drive up the cost of the program. Be careful with CBO forecasts of anything more than a year or two, they tend to be FAR off of what the actual is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom