• 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!

Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

VanceMack said:
They wouldnt be built in 6 years. If you understood the government system and contracting process, you would understand why it must be the way it is. Thats not a dem or a republican thing. Its a reality thing.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was a Dem or Rep thing. That you note it's the governments system is indeed the problem.
 
teamosil said:
Why do I have to keep repeating myself... I don't support boosting up businesses just purely for the jobs effect, I support it when there are double purposes that combine to make a good balance. In this case, stimulating renewable energy
Click to expand...

It was failing at that also. Everyone but this administration recognized that.
 
1Perry said:
It was failing at that also. Everyone but this administration recognized that.
Click to expand...

Again, not every company you back is going to win. Ideally they would all be companies the market is betting against. No point in giving loans to ones that are already drawing private investors. We're going in a loop. If you don't have anything new to add, lets just stop.
 
teamosil said:
Again, not every company you back is going to win.
Click to expand...

Everyone warned them.

Ideally they would all be companies the market is betting against. No point in giving loans to ones that are already drawing private investors. We're going in a loop. If you don't have anything new to add, lets just stop.
Click to expand...

No, you are right here to a point but I already covered this. If this is the case and it's government money or sink, the first priority must be to see that the interest of the tax payers are covered first.
 
1Perry said:
No, you are right here to a point but I already covered this. If this is the case and it's government money or sink, the first priority must be to see that the interest of the tax payers are covered first.
Click to expand...

The interest of the taxpayer is in lower unemployment and faster development of renewable energy.
 
Look, best case, they made a stupid investment, and were really stupid to promote it. Worse case, there was a pay off for campaign help. Either way, no way this doesn't hurt the president. The only real question is how much.
 
teamosil said:
The interest of the taxpayer is in lower unemployment and faster development of renewable energy.
Click to expand...

Those are not mutually exclusive to making sure tax payers money is protected first.
 
1Perry said:
Those are not mutually exclusive to making sure tax payers money is protected first.
Click to expand...

I mean, if we could waive a magic wand and only give loans to companies that would make it, we would of course do that. But in order for this effort to succeed we need to give loans to riskier companies. Those are the ones that aren't going to accomplish what we need them to accomplish with just private sector investment. So, yeah, some of them will go belly up.
 
teamosil said:
I mean, if we could waive a magic wand and only give loans to companies that would make it, we would of course do that.
Click to expand...

We are beyond that.... This was a mistake, period. Even when take a risk though, you do everything you can to protect the interests of the taxpayer first.

But in order for this effort to succeed we need to give loans to riskier companies. Those are the ones that aren't going to accomplish what we need them to accomplish with just private sector investment. So, yeah, some of them will go belly up.
Click to expand...

No, we do not have to do this.
 
teamosil said:
I mean, if we could waive a magic wand and only give loans to companies that would make it, we would of course do that. But in order for this effort to succeed we need to give loans to riskier companies. Those are the ones that aren't going to accomplish what we need them to accomplish with just private sector investment. So, yeah, some of them will go belly up.
Click to expand...

So you're quite comfortable with the idea of governments giving millions of dollars to start up companies, with no measure of possible success having to be in place?

I guess you'll feel just as comfortable with Perry, Romney or Bachman doing the same thing?
 
VanceMack said:
They wouldnt be built in 6 years. If you understood the government system and contracting process, you would understand why it must be the way it is. Thats not a dem or a republican thing. Its a reality thing.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time. He has no clue what is required before the government can design, bid, award, and administer projects. If we did it his way, it would take five years to get a porta-potty built and they would cost 5 times what one costs using IDIQ contracts. Then he would be bitching about that.
 
Gill said:
You're wasting your time. He has no clue what is required before the government can design, bid, award, and administer projects. If we did it his way, it would take five years to get a porta-potty built and they would cost 5 times what one costs using IDIQ contracts. Then he would be bitching about that.
Click to expand...
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.
 
teamosil said:
The interest of the taxpayer is in lower unemployment and faster development of renewable energy.
Click to expand...

We need to shrink the government, in that case.
 
teamosil said:
Certainly that would create jobs, but like I said, I don't support just boosting up companies at random, I think we can only justify it when it is in a sector that is particularly key to our national interests. That's why I do support it for renewable energy. But, they didn't give them money, they gave them a loan.
Click to expand...

Among the keys to your national interest is oil, but the government is putting roadblocks against exploration and importation. No new nuclear plants are being build, the coal industry is threatened by this administration, no more hydro electric dams under construction and forget about cutting any trees.

The government is experimenting with alternate source of energy, making shady business deals with creepy characters, without being sure that traditional energy sources are being maintained.

That the US Government, with no one with any business experience at the helm, has now become venture capitalists is a scary enough idea, but when they introduce their untried faculty lounge chatter to the real world, and just throw money around hoping some of it might somehow, somewhere, do some good, it becomes like a very bad movie with an insane plot and a darkly comedic set of characters.

Would any serious person really vote for more of this?
 
Grant said:
Among the keys to your national interest is oil, but the government is putting roadblocks against exploration and importation.
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Grant said:
No new nuclear plants are being build, the coal industry is threatened by this administration, no more hydro electric dams under construction and forget about cutting any trees.
Click to expand...

Nuclear I agree is the future. 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.

Grant said:
That the US Government, with no one with any business experience at the helm, has now become venture capitalists is a scary enough idea, but when they introduce their untried faculty lounge chatter to the real world, and just throw money around hoping some of it might somehow, somewhere, do some good, it becomes like a very bad movie with an insane plot and a darkly comedic set of characters.
Click to expand...

Grant said:
So you're quite comfortable with the idea of governments giving millions of dollars to start up companies, with no measure of possible success having to be in place?

I guess you'll feel just as comfortable with Perry, Romney or Bachman doing the same thing?
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

But instead the government is doing neither. This is to be expected.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Grant said:
Do you feel there will never be alternative sources of energy?
Click to expand...

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...
 
1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Karl said:
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.... ;)
Click to expand...


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
 
j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

:roll: :coffeepap :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
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.

:roll: :coffeepap :roll:
Click to expand...

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

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

j-mac
Click to expand...

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