Page 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 217

Thread: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Took me a while to realize that. None so blind as those that simply by damn refuse to see. Kinda surprising actually. Hadnt seen that in him before. As a Project Manager/IT Design Engineer working for the DoD...you get to know the 'system' pretty quick. Spending 4 years (multiple countries) in the middle east you get to know not only the US government contracting system but also the host nation system. The two are not compatible. Oh...you can TRY to get things accomplished. We saw projects that were held up for 9 years that we were able to get done in 2 weeks. The fed chokes on process. Its not just time...its literally millions of dollars blown on beauracracy, manpower, and wasted effort.
    We are not saving taxpayers money by simply handing Halliburton no bid contracts.

    Halliburton Watch

    You are argueing how it's suppose to work. I am argueing how it actually works.
    Last edited by 1Perry; 09-22-11 at 06:27 PM.

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No, absolutely not. Allowing corporations to extract our nation's oil more rapidly and sell it on the international market is absolutely against the national interest.
    The oil in Alaska. and the northern states, could be used exclusively for the American market. Why do you believe it would go the the international markets?

    All it does is bring down the price worldwide ever so slightly in the short term and bring it up more significantly further down the road. Profits for those companies would go up, but it doesn't help the people. We have a finite amount of oil both in the world and in the US. Our national interest lies in stretching that out to last as long as possible, not consuming it as quickly as possible. That's not even considering global warming. When you take global warming into account, the case is even stronger that extracting it quickly is much worse than slowly.
    We have plenty of oil in Canada and are prepared to export it to US refineries but it is taking far too long to get approval. The situation is being seriously misrepresented in the US and especially by the goofy former vice President under Bill Clinton. "B" list celebrities are getting more air time on the subject than those who actually understand the situation. The Chinese have no trouble investing in Canadian oil and importing it as well, but the Americans sit on their hands dithering while literally and figuratively tilting at windmills.
    Nuclear I agree is the future.
    Sure, but how many plants are being built? People talk of the Three Mile Island tragedy when no one was even hurt and get their news on views on the sublect from Jane Fond and Hollywood.

    That said, government isn't really holding that back. Both parties support nuclear. Obama's energy secretary is clearly a major supporter of nuclear. But, yeah, expansion is slow. The energy secretary's stance is that the long term solution is nuclear, but it isn't really ready for primetime yet. It is still expensive and dangerous and it will take decades to switch over. His approach is to use renewables to bridge the gap between the present and when nuclear really can take over. I think that makes sense.
    It would seem to make little sense to work on alternative sources when nuclear is the future (and the successful present in many areas of the world) if alternative energies are only a short term remedy. And as far as transportation goes (as well as many other areas), private industry is already working on that. No government funding is necessary.

    It is far easier to rely on people's willingness to make a buck through hard work and initiative than giving people them money and expecting the same result. As long as the government is giving people money to look for alternative sources of energy, it is against their best interests to find any.
    This all still just comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what these programs are there for. This isn't a money making scheme for the federal government. It isn't about investing in businesses that will yield a good return. That just isn't the goal. The goal is a policy goal- to advance renewable energy and increase employment.
    But instead the government is doing neither. This is to be expected.

  3. #143
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The oil in Alaska. and the northern states, could be used exclusively for the American market. Why do you believe it would go the the international markets?
    Not sure what you are proposing exactly. Ordering oil companies to only sell in the US? That would have no effect. We'd buy less oil from abroad, the price there would be the same as here... The oil market is international it doesn't matter what location you choose to sell it from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    We have plenty of oil in Canada and are prepared to export it to US refineries but it is taking far too long to get approval. The situation is being seriously misrepresented in the US and especially by the goofy former vice President under Bill Clinton. "B" list celebrities are getting more air time on the subject than those who actually understand the situation. The Chinese have no trouble investing in Canadian oil and importing it as well, but the Americans sit on their hands dithering while literally and figuratively tilting at windmills.
    Why would using up the oil of the US or friendly nations faster be a good thing? The ideal outcome would be if as the oil elsewhere started to run short we were still sitting on a stockpile, not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It would seem to make little sense to work on alternative sources when nuclear is the future (and the successful present in many areas of the world) if alternative energies are only a short term remedy. And as far as transportation goes (as well as many other areas), private industry is already working on that. No government funding is necessary.

    It is far easier to rely on people's willingness to make a buck through hard work and initiative than giving people them money and expecting the same result. As long as the government is giving people money to look for alternative sources of energy, it is against their best interests to find any.
    On our present course oil is going to get too expensive before nuclear is ready to replace it. We could theoretically just try to accelerate nuclear to the point where we are ready to switch over to it before the oil gets too expensive, but that is a much tougher path. Most say it would be impossible. I don't think we should gamble the future of the US's status as a first world country on that bet alone.

    And developing renewable tech while they're working out the kinks of nuclear has lots of major advantages. First, renewables will always have a place. Nuclear is good for large amounts of power delivered to small areas, but not good at small amounts of power spread out over a large area for example. Renewables are better at that. And, worldwide most countries certainly aren't going to be ready to go to nuclear by the time oil is over, so having a head start on that market that will almost certainly be the next big boom.
    Last edited by teamosil; 09-22-11 at 08:21 PM.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not sure what you are proposing exactly. Ordering oil companies to only sell in the US? That would have no effect. We'd buy less oil from abroad, the price there would be the same as here... The oil market is international it doesn't matter what location you choose to sell it from.
    But it was you who made the claim that oil compnes would sell the oil on the international market and that it would be against national interests. I don't see how that is so.
    Why would using up the oil of the US or friendly nations faster be a good thing? The ideal outcome would be if as the oil elsewhere started to run short we were still sitting on a stockpile, not the other way around.
    So you are against the drilling for oil in order to leave it in the ground for future generations? Do you feel there will never be alternative sources of energy?

    Canada is a very friendly nation and we can worry about our oil future while you relax and just buy it. Of course you don't have to buy it, or refine it. Others are only too pleased to buy our oil and many Canadians believe we should be refining it ourselves as well. It really is your decision whether you have energy you can use or not, but it might be wise to consider the consequences if you don't have it.
    On our present course oil is going to get too expensive before nuclear is ready to replace it. We could theoretically just try to accelerate nuclear to the point where we are ready to switch over to it before the oil gets too expensive, but that is a much tougher path. Most say it would be impossible. I don't think we should gamble the future of the US's status as a first world country on that bet alone.
    The debt and energy problems are sending you in that direction already. When China starts insisting you follow their financial dictates then you know that the world has changed dramatically. The idea of fixed permanence as a Superpower and a first world nation is not written in the stars. Americans appear to have forgotten or abandoned the ideas which made them so successful and are now embarking on a road that everyone else in the world recognizes as a dead end. It is so 1970's.
    And developing renewable tech while they're working out the kinks of nuclear has lots of major advantages. First, renewables will always have a place. Nuclear is good for large amounts of power delivered to small areas, but not good at small amounts of power spread out over a large area for example. Renewables are better at that. And, worldwide most countries certainly aren't going to be ready to go to nuclear by the time oil is over, so having a head start on that market that will almost certainly be the next big boom.
    The kinks have been worked out of nuclear.

    Nuclear power plants in Europe

    Nuclear Power in Canada

    I trust American initiative and know-how to solve any alternative energy problems. Certainly governments can play a role but it should never be speculative.

    Jane Fonda's conspiracy movie about nuclear energy did more harm to the American people than most people will ever realize.

  5. #145
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But it was you who made the claim that oil compnes would sell the oil on the international market and that it would be against national interests. I don't see how that is so.
    Maybe I'm not being clear. They would just sell oil on the oil market like usual. People or companies from anywhere in the world would buy it. So by using up the oil in the ground we control you would slightly reduce the worldwide price of oil for a while, but you'd also run us out of oil faster. So when push comes to shove, we wouldn't have control over much oil and we'd be more screwed. And, by using up oil more quickly and making it cheaper you just bring that day where the oil gets too expensive to use closer. And you screw up the environment more the faster you use it up because you overrun the planet's ability to reabsorb carbon by a wider margin. So, all around, the small reduction in short term oil prices for everybody in the world is totally outweighed by those disadvantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Do you feel there will never be alternative sources of energy?
    Certainly there will. But on our present course there will be a major gap between the end of affordable oil and the next source of energy. A gap like that is no small thing. It means the countries that are the most oil dependent become the third world and the countries that are the least oil dependent become a greatly less wealthy new first world. That will happen in our lifetime and if we don't change what we're doing aggressively and quickly, we're definitely headed for the wrong end of that equation. And, at the same time as we're dealing with that, we'll be dealing with global warming. Some sources estimate that the costs for the US of the consequences of global warming if we continue increasing emissions at our current pace will top $1 trillion a year. If it's even 1/2 that that would be a knockout blow on top of the total collapse of our economic system from running out of oil... In 50 years we're going to look back at the people of today, see that we had all the information right there in front of us and chose to do nothing, and we'll be totally stunned at how we could be so stupid...

  6. #146
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    We are not saving taxpayers money by simply handing Halliburton no bid contracts.

    Halliburton Watch

    You are argueing how it's suppose to work. I am argueing how it actually works.
    That's the problem...........you don't have a clue how it "actually" works other than what you've read on a left wing web site.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  7. #147
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,315

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    It could be argued that the point of the war itself was to make money for Halliburton, or at least a prime reason. Alternative reasons for the war would be oil profiteering, again by companies like Halliburton (had the war gone the way that the neo-cons originally intended and we now had a puppet govt in Iraq with Exxon and Halliburton controlling the oil fields).

    So... I'd suggest a different tack, since I doubt Obama invented solar power just to line the pockets of some monied supporter.

    By the way, Fast and Furious appears to be an outgrowth of a Bush-era program:


    Perhaps you can get Obama nailed on parking tickets....

    Obama may not have started Fast and Furious, but he sure screwed it up. And, although your whacked theory about how somehow Exxon and Haliburton control Iraqi Oil, it is simply a lie. But it is interesting that you are still promoting that tripe, while excusing what may prove to be actual payoffs to big donors by Obama...I guess when it is a repub your tack is to charge it whether true or not, yet when it is true with your ideological simpatico President, then we can all just move along with nothing to see eh?

    Hypocrisy much?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #148
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Obama may not have started Fast and Furious, but he sure screwed it up. And, although your whacked theory about how somehow Exxon and Haliburton control Iraqi Oil, it is simply a lie. But it is interesting that you are still promoting that tripe, while excusing what may prove to be actual payoffs to big donors by Obama...I guess when it is a repub your tack is to charge it whether true or not, yet when it is true with your ideological simpatico President, then we can all just move along with nothing to see eh?

    Hypocrisy much?

    j-mac
    So, Obama was running the show. He gave the orders, developed the plan, was down there in the threnches make every decision? That's one involved president.


    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #149
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,315

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So, Obama was running the show. He gave the orders, developed the plan, was down there in the threnches make every decision? That's one involved president.

    Wo when it was Bush every buck stopped at him, but with Obama no buck does? Nice try....

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #150
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Wo when it was Bush every buck stopped at him, but with Obama no buck does? Nice try....

    j-mac
    I don't remember the buck ever stopping at Bush. However, once again you don't see the differences. When Katrina happened, Bush was there, we ahve video of him in meetings (even though he later said he had no idea). We also had him saying Brownie was doing a hell of a job. This was Bush showing himself to be part of the problem. You have not a single thing like that here.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •