• 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!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

USA_1 said:
I just can't figure out why, when for 6 years the GOP had total power, they didn't do anything to make us less dependent on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

You find it political ??? what have the dem's done in the last 2 years?? Or the two years prior to that while controlling both houses? What are they doing now while still controlling 2/3 of the government ?
 
The Barbarian said:
You find it political ??? what have the dem's done in the last 2 years?? Or the two years prior to that while controlling both houses? What are they doing now while still controlling 2/3 of the government ?
Click to expand...

The democrats have done as little as the republicans. The problem now is oil prices are soaring because of the devaluing of the dollar by Bernanke. It will only get worse as long as the FED is making our money worthless.

One of the big reasons for high oil prices is the decline of the dollar. Since oil is purchased in dollars, marketed in dollars, sold in dollars, the 40% decline in the dollar in the last six years has caused a dramatic increase in the cost of oil. This increase in the cost of oil then produces an equally dramatic increase in the cost of gas. Lets do a little calculation here if the dollar has lost 40% of its value in the last 6 years that would not effect domestically made and bought items and materials much, but it would dramatically increase the cost of foreign resources i.e. oil. So in today's dollar for example gas is around $4 a gallon. Factoring out the decline of the dollar that same gallon of gas would be about $2.40 a gallon right now. The decline in the dollar helps in some ways the marketing of our products worldwide because it makes them cheaper, but in hurts us in the long run because it makes things we buy from foreign sources that much more expensive. Since we buy over 60% of our oil from foreign sources a devalued dollar is killing us at the pump. The cause of the decline of the dollar consists of many factors. One of the factors has been the poor fiscal policy of the federal government. The bloated budget deficits are a big factor. Another more prominent factor in my opinion is the poor monetary policies of the Fed. The rampant and rapid printing of more and more dollars is causing a crisis in high energy prices and if left unchecked this will lead to further devaluing of the dollar and hyperinflationism. Other more recent developments causing increases at the pump are the crisis's in Libya and the rest of the middle east.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
USA_1 said:
I just can't figure out why, when for 6 years the GOP had total power, they didn't do anything to make us less dependent on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

politics

but times are different now

of course, so long as barack the slasher hussein occupies the white house, with his weirdo ideas about bankrupting industries and taxing commuters into pain...

raising taxes on ENERGY at both ends, production and consumption, in the midst of a recession, is suicide

ask the senators

Senate Democrats urge White House to shelve cap & trade - National Environmental Headlines | Examiner.com

John Rockefeller takes aim at EPA - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

Joe Manchin puts bullet thru cap and trade (VIDEO)
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
Bill Clinton: Drilling delays 'ridiculous' - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

of course, what can one expect from another administration the stated purpose of which is to bankrupt coal
Click to expand...

on occasion a sitting president will say something stupid....and even more often while running for office...
I might be willing to bet, tho, that he can never measure up to his predecessor...after his second term we can look back and see.

As for the oil issue, my chief complaint is mideast oil. It makes presidents suck up to the Saudi Royal family. GHWB attacked Iraq on behalf of Kuwait and the Saudis. His son followed suit with even less excuse.
 
there's one thing dearer to the neocon heart than oil, friend

but we're drifting far out to sea

stay up
 
The Barbarian said:
You find it political ??? what have the dem's done in the last 2 years?? Or the two years prior to that while controlling both houses? What are they doing now while still controlling 2/3 of the government ?
Click to expand...

The Dems have made the largest investment in history for alternatives to our declining fossil fuels.
 
on march 1, the gao found not only a full half trillion dollars of waste, most of it in the last 2 years, but also accounted that cap and trade would cost the american consumer an obscene two hundred billion per year

or 1800 dollars per household

GAO Finds Massive Waste, Duplication - FoxBusiness.com

and there's your slasher's solutions to ENERGY, writ large

know the man
 
The Prof said:
on march 1, the gao found not only a full half trillion dollars of waste, most of it in the last 2 years, but also accounted that cap and trade would cost the american consumer an obscene two hundred billion per year

or 1800 dollars per household

GAO Finds Massive Waste, Duplication - FoxBusiness.com

and there's your slasher's solutions to ENERGY, writ large

know the man
Click to expand...

GAO finds waste? the horror? the real horror is that it is an ongoing issue, has been for many decades, and will continue.
I am retired military reserve. I had Tricare from age 60 to 65. I was using the local air force base.
I have a 30% disability rating for PD that pays me about $420 per month. Because of that, I was automatically enrolled in VA health care and given an appt. for a physical, routine stuff like lab work and examination. I didn't ask for the appt. Part of that was an ECG. I had just had one at Luke AFB, my last one on Tricare as I am turning 65 and going on Medicare. but it wasn't acceptable to the VA, they had to have their own. No big deal, they are quick and easy.
But that is just the start. I had a VA Benefits hearing exam to determine a disability rating on hearing and tinnitus, both very common among military veterans who were exposed to loud noises. THAT wasn't good enough to be used to prescribe hearing aids from VA medical. THey gave me a new appt 6 months out for another hearing exam. Get this, BOTH exams are done at the same place and by the same people, the VA hospital. I told them up front that the onlly reason I expected to use VA Medical is for the hearing aids, as the VA is the only place where it won't cost me thousands of dollars. Outside of that, I hope to never use VA Medical services.. I have Medicare A and B starting this month and Tricare For Life as my supplemental and my retired service status for free drugs (part D not needed). So far all I need is a couple drugs for the PD. They cost me nothing.
But even tho VA medical and VA benefits are both run by the VA, they won't talk to each other any more than they have to.....
 
Last edited:
USA_1 said:
I just can't figure out why, when for 6 years the GOP had total power, they didn't do anything to make us less dependent on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

Because you can't without hurting their donators. First of all, there is no such thing as less dependent on "foreign oil." Oil is basically fungible in the context of the refining process. Furthermore, oil outside of nationalized industries is internationally priced. So whatever we drill in Texas is priced at the same rate in Saudi Arabia (for the same type of crude). Therefore, if we drill more in Texas, price changes in the international market will decide its price.

To actually make us less dependent on foreign oil, we'd have to be less dependent on oil in general. Considering who donates to GOP coffers, that ain't going to happen.
 
We are the United States! We don't need to pay for oil. We can just go take it and there's nothing anybody can do about it. And then our soldiers can go pillage the mens clothing stores. So they can look all fine coming home to their families.
 
Last edited:
USA_1 said:
I just can't figure out why, when for 6 years the GOP had total power, they didn't do anything to make us less dependent on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

Jimmy Carter tried to give us an energy program, Reagan gutted it. No president since has made so much as a token effort. Obama MIGHT be trying, we'll see.
 
"It's a future in which skilled laborers are helping us lead in burgeoning industries. It's a future in which renewable electricity is fueling plug-in hybrid cars and energy-efficient homes and businesses. It's a future in which we're exporting homegrown energy technology instead of importing foreign oil. And it's a future in which our economy is powered not by what we borrow and spend but what we invent and what we build.


That's the bright future that lies ahead for America. And it's one of -- it's a future that my administration is striving to achieve each and every day. We've already made the largest investment in clean energy in history as part of the Recovery Act -- an investment that is expected to create more than 700,000 jobs across America -– manufacturing advanced batteries for more fuel-efficient vehicles, upgrading the power grid so that it's smarter and it's stronger, doubling our nation's capacity to generate renewable energy. And after decades in which we have done little to increase the efficiency of cars and trucks, we've raised fuel economy standards to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while helping folks save money at the pump.



But in order to truly harness our potential in clean energy we're going to have to do more, and that's why we're here. In the near term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we're going to have to make some tough decisions about opening up new offshore areas for oil and gas development. We'll need to make continued investments in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies, even as we build greater capacity in renewables like wind and solar. And we're going to have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in America.



That's what brings us here. Through the Department of Energy -– under the leadership of Nobel prize-winning physicist,
Steven Chu –- although, just a quick side note: When he was talking to some of the instructors here, and they were talking about currents and this and that and the other, I indicated to him that he could have saved a lot of money. Instead of getting a Ph.D., he could have come here and learned some of the same stuff. (Laughter and applause.) You know, the instructors here were just keeping up -- they were right there with him.



But through the Department of Energy and Secretary Chu's leadership, we are announcing roughly $8 billion in loan guarantees to break ground on the first new nuclear plant in our country in three decades -- the first new nuclear power plant in nearly three decades. (Applause.)



It's a plant that will create thousands of construction jobs in the next few years, and some 800 permanent jobs -- well-paying permanent jobs -- in the years to come. And this is only the beginning. My budget proposes tripling the loan guarantees we provide to help finance safe, clean nuclear facilities -– and we'll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects here in Maryland and across America.



Now, there will be those that welcome this announcement, those who think it's been long overdue. But there are also going to be those who strongly disagree with this announcement. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasize is this: Even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can’t keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between the left and the right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs.



See, our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. And nuclear energy is no exception. Japan and France have long invested heavily in this industry. Meanwhile, there are 56 nuclear reactors under construction around the world: 21 in China alone; six in South Korea; five in India. And the commitment of these countries is not just generating the jobs in those plants; it's generating demand for expertise and new technologies.



So make no mistake: Whether it’s nuclear energy, or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we’re going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them. We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas, instead of here in the United States of America. And that's not a future that I accept.



Now, I know it’s been long assumed that those who champion the environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though we’ve not broken ground on a new power plant -- new nuclear plant in 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.



On the other side, there are those who have long advocated for nuclear power -- including many Republicans -- who have to recognize that we're not going to achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable. That's not just my personal conclusion; it's the conclusion of many in the energy industry itself, including CEOs of the nation's largest utility companies. Energy leaders and experts recognize that as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel.



That's why we need comprehensive energy and climate legislation, and why this legislation has drawn support from across the ideological spectrum. I raised this just last week with congressional Republican leaders. I believe there's real common ground here. And my administration will be working to build on areas of agreement so that we can pass a bipartisan energy and climate bill through the Senate.



Now, none of this is to say that there aren't some serious drawbacks with respect to nuclear energy that have to be addressed. As the CEOs standing behind me will tell you, nuclear power generates waste, and we need to accelerate our efforts to find ways of storing this waste safely and disposing of it. That's why we've asked a bipartisan group of leaders and nuclear experts to examine this challenge. And these plants also have to be held to the highest and strictest safety standards to answer the legitimate concerns of Americans who live near and far from these facilities. That's going to be an imperative.



But investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step. What I hope is that with this announcement, we're underscoring both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue but as a matter that's far more important than politics -- because the choices we make will affect not just the next generation but many generations to come.



The fact is changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew; it requires us to act anew; and it demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides, to act in good faith, and to move beyond the broken politics of the past. That's what we must do; that's what we will do."
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON ENERGY
 
Thanks for not putting all that in quotes. Much easier to read. ;)
 
Obama's speech sounds good, but electricity is a much smaller problem than oil. We have multiple ways to produce and conserve electricity, easily, compared to the oil issue.
Transportation fuels remains the hard to solve problem, the one that keeps us attached to the Arab oil teat....
 
UtahBill said:
Obama's speech sounds good, but electricity is a much smaller problem than oil. We have multiple ways to produce and conserve electricity, easily, compared to the oil issue.
Transportation fuels remains the hard to solve problem, the one that keeps us attached to the Arab oil teat....
Click to expand...


Not hard at all....Drill.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Not hard at all....Drill.

j-mac
Click to expand...

we are drilling....between govt and the oil companies playing games, we aren't drilling enough, and even if we were, a lot of OUR oil is hard to reach, or hard to extract. We WILL PAY MORE for oil.
What is a lot simpler, helps a lot, and is easily done with no new technology, is conserve.
As long as we waste it, we deserve to pay more.
 
UtahBill said:
we are drilling....between govt and the oil companies playing games, we aren't drilling enough, and even if we were, a lot of OUR oil is hard to reach, or hard to extract. We WILL PAY MORE for oil.
What is a lot simpler, helps a lot, and is easily done with no new technology, is conserve.
As long as we waste it, we deserve to pay more.
Click to expand...


Wrong. We have the resources to tap into right now, that the Obama administration, and the activists now running the EPA are actively blocking the permitting and extraction or exploration of our own resources. Until you can explain to me why it is that this isn't a political man made shortage to control the population into adopting some green energy fantasies, then you are really just screaming up wind in a hurricane.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom