• 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!

Gov't: 23K workers affected by Gulf oil drill ban

apdst said:
They're back fishing. Didn't know if you heard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for seafood that everybody is to afraid to eat. That will do wonders for the price of shrimp. :roll: How are people who call themselves libertarians so ignorant about economics?


apdst said:
that's where you're missing the boat. If people that visit Florida are unemployed, they won't be spending any money in Florida.
Click to expand...

You're talking like every tourist who visits the Gulf Coast somehow has their livelihood connected to the Gulf Oil industry. That's nonsense. Explain to me how the moratorium is going to affect the income of snowbirds from Quebec and you might have a point. :roll:


apdst said:
Too bad The Massiah and his propaganda machine made far too much of this oil spill. Huh?
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok :roll: Why don't you tell it to George Noory.
 
apdst said:
How much do Florida fishermen generate, every year?
Click to expand...

More than Florida oil rigs!

What does that have to do with anything, anyway? Tourism is king, everything else takes a back seat.
 
Guy Incognito said:
More than Florida oil rigs!

What does that have to do with anything, anyway? Tourism is king, everything else takes a back seat.
Click to expand...

Ok, how much does tourism generate, then?
 
Guy Incognito said:
You're talking like every tourist who visits the Gulf Coast somehow has their livelihood connected to the Gulf Oil industry. That's nonsense. Explain to me how the moratorium is going to affect the income of snowbirds from Quebec and you might have a point. :roll:
Click to expand...

You think that Florida can survive on just what the Quebies spend?
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'd like to see how that study was done, as there is absolutely no indication is supports the conclusion you draw from it. Does it include Florida's Atlantic coast in the "Gulf" economy? How much of that oil industry is in Mexico? It seems like very skewed numbers to me, and there is not enough information to be determinative of anything.
Click to expand...
It doesn't jive with your paradigm, so you just discount it. Gotcha.
Guy Incognito said:
Not that it really matters, even if oil is the largest industry in the US Gulf economy (which there is no evidence for, and it seems likely that this is not the case, but even assuming for the sake of argument that it is true), it doesn't matter. The moratorium on new drilling isn't hurting our oil industry as much as another oil spill would hurt our tourism, period. But the voice of the segment of the economy that benefits from tourism is not as unified as the oil industry, whose shills are very vocal indeed and adept at distorting facts. But when we cut through the BS, it's obvious to anybody that there is enough potential harm that could come from another oil spill, and enough public relations damage-control that needs to be done to combat the effects of the BP spill, that the moratorium is justified.
Click to expand...
Right, so you prefer to let the strong-arm of government protect your interests. How libertarian of you. :roll:

I don't give a **** about your tourism. If it can't stand up to a couple of tarballs, it wasn't meant to survive in the first place. If you have to use government force to protect your tourism, it wasn't meant to survive in the first place. Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it.
 
apdst said:
They're not clotted up now, are they? Most of the tar balls that are there, didn't even come from MC 262.

What are you going to do when the entire economy along the gulf cost collapses, because of the millions of oilfield jobs that will be killed because of the moratorium? I think that's what people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around. There's no doubt that millions of oilfield dollars flow into Florida every year. I know all kinds of people that spend their oilfield wages in Florida
Click to expand...

There aren't millions of oilfield jobs on the gulf, for starters. Secondly, the only jobs impacted by the moratorium are NEW drilling in deepwater wells. Try harder.
 
Coronado said:
I don't give a **** about your tourism. If it can't stand up to a couple of tarballs, it wasn't meant to survive in the first place. If you have to use government force to protect your tourism, it wasn't meant to survive in the first place. Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it.
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** about your oil wells. If our only source of oil is from new deepwater wells, we're already ****ed.

For the record, there are over 4,000 active wells in the gulf right now that are not being impacted by the moratorium. Put on your big-girl panties and deal.
 
apdst said:
You think that Florida can survive on just what the Quebies spend?
Click to expand...

Tourism is our bread and butter here, and it brings in billions, enough so that we don't have a state income tax. Maybe you should focus on subjects you are more familiar with, like nutria.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I don't give a **** about your oil wells. If our only source of oil is from new deepwater wells, we're already ****ed.

For the record, there are over 4,000 active wells in the gulf right now that are not being impacted by the moratorium. Put on your big-girl panties and deal.
Click to expand...
What's funny is that drilling deepwater wells wouldn't really be necessary if the coastal states would get over their squeamishness regarding drilling closer in to shore.
 
Coronado said:
It doesn't jive with your paradigm, so you just discount it. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

So you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. Gotcha.

Coronado said:
Right, so you prefer to let the strong-arm of government protect your interests. How libertarian of you. :roll:
Click to expand...

Don't give me that nonsense. There's more than one way to be a libertarian, and the variety I subscribe to recognizes the important role government plays in protecting the environment.
 
Coronado said:
What's funny is that drilling deepwater wells wouldn't really be necessary if the coastal states would get over their squeamishness regarding drilling closer in to shore.
Click to expand...

What part of "we don't want your wells on our coast" do you not get? And no, drilling in deepwater isn't "necessary." It's a choice, just like many other choices.
 
Guy Incognito said:
So you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
What the **** do you think the article was if not evidence?
Guy Incognito said:
Don't give me that nonsense. There's more than one way to be a libertarian, and the variety I subscribe to recognizes the important role government plays in protecting the environment.
Click to expand...
Whatever makes you wet, sparky. Living in a garage makes one a car, I suppose.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
What part of "we don't want your wells on our coast" do you not get? And no, drilling in deepwater isn't "necessary." It's a choice, just like many other choices.
Click to expand...
It all boils down to just how much you want to pay per gallon of gas, I guess. :shrug:
 
Guy Incognito said:
A better analogy is that I don't like gambling with my primary source of income. Saving 23,000 jobs in the short term is not worth the risk of losing millions of jobs, potentially for decades in the future. It's a simple cost benefit analysis, which you'd think somebody who purports to understand the economics would be able to wrap their head around.
Click to expand...

And for someone who's acting snarky about a cost-benefit analysis, you've ignored a pretty fundamental factor.

The benefit of drilling is either > or < ((the cost of another disaster)*(the probability that this drilling at issue will cause another disaster))

Unless you have an idea of how much of a difference this moratorium would make, you can't actually conduct a cost-benefit analysis.

Catz Part Deux said:
What part of "we don't want your wells on our coast" do you not get?
Click to expand...

The last time you said this, I provided you with a poll showing that the vast majority of people in your state supported drilling.
 
Coronado said:
What the **** do you think the article was if not evidence?
Click to expand...

Let me spell it out for you more carefully, since you are being deliberately obtuse in the matter. The article makes no reference to the methodology of the study, and considering that it took into account the entire oil industry in both the United States and Mexico it cannot serve as evidence of the oil industry being a bigger source of revenue than tourism for the Gulf Coast states. Show me the study itself, and/or a breakdown of the oil and tourism revenues for the Gulf Coast of the USA and I will happily concede that oil produces more revenue than tourism. But until then (I'll say it slowly) you... have... no... evidence.

Coronado said:
Whatever makes you wet, sparky. Living in a garage makes one a car, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Such vulgarity is really uncalled for. If you think all libertarians are right-wing corporate shills then you clearly need an education in libertarianism.
 
Coronado said:
It all boils down to just how much you want to pay per gallon of gas, I guess. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't drive that much, so I'm fine with paying more. I think we should be paying the actual cost of gasoline, personally, rather than having the hidden pricetag that flows through foreign wars, etc. We might have very different fuel consumption habits if we did, and get over our unhealthy addiction to oil.

Yes, I am a fascist treehugger. ;)
 
RightinNYC said:
The benefit of drilling is either > or < ((the cost of another disaster)*(the probability that this drilling at issue will cause another disaster))
Click to expand...

Well, you're almost right. A true cost benefit analysis would look a little more like this:
[The benefit of drilling (23K jobs)] < [((Cost of another disaster, i.e. (millions of lost jobs + billions of lost tourism)) * the likelihood of the disaster) + the cost to tourism from negative public perception if the moratorium is prematurely lifted]

It's pretty simple, really. Look, it's sad that 23k people will lose their jobs in the oil industry, but that pales in comparison to the damage that oil spill could have on the tourism industry if there is another spill, and moreover if the public perception is that nothing is being done about it. The Gulf Coast has an image to rehabilitate here (not to mention an ecosystem).
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Florida, and I don't want even a one in a million chance of any more oil clotting up my beautiful white sand beaches.
Click to expand...

Your one vote has been registered.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I might only have one vote, but thankfully I'm not alone. On behalf of the majority of Floridians who share my view, we thank you for your kind support.
Click to expand...

Sixty-four percent (64%) of U.S. voters now believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, an eight-point jump from mid-July. Just 21% disagree and feel such drilling should not be permitted, while 15% more are not sure.

Support for offshore oil drilling is at its highest level since mid-May. That support has ranged from 56% to 64% in regular tracking since the oil rig explosion in the Gulf in late April that caused the leak. Still, 72% favored offshore drilling just after President Obama's announcement in late March that he was lifting the longtime ban on such drilling.
Click to expand...

64% Support Offshore Oil Drilling, 55% Favor Deepwater Drilling - Rasmussen Reports™

Three in four likely voters – 74 percent – support offshore drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and more than half (59 percent) also favor drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.
Click to expand...

Poll: 74 percent support offshore oil drilling in U.S. » Naples Daily News

:violin
 
Crunch said:
64% Support Offshore Oil Drilling, 55% Favor Deepwater Drilling - Rasmussen Reports™
Click to expand...

I don't see what this has to do with the fact that a majority of Floridians oppose drilling.
New poll: 71% of Florida voters want vote on banning oil drilling | Saint Petersblog
Poll: Voters want say over offshore drilling - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Crunch said:
Poll: 74 percent support offshore oil drilling in U.S. » Naples Daily News

:violin
Click to expand...

Two years old, try again.

Also, just a friendly word of advice for you. You might want to change your inaccurate sig, to reflect the fact that there is such a thing as a natural born dual citizen.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I don't see what this has to do with the fact that a majority of Floridians oppose drilling.
Click to expand...
Hint: There are more States in the USA than just Florida
New poll: 71% of Florida voters want vote on banning oil drilling | Saint Petersblog
Poll: Voters want say over offshore drilling - Florida - MiamiHerald.com



Two years old, try again.
Click to expand...
Oops.... see first poll
Also, just a friendly word of advice for you. You might want to change your inaccurate sig, to reflect the fact that there is such a thing as a natural born dual citizen.
Click to expand...

LOL........ like some POS article on the internet is going to over turn 6 Supreme Court opinions and 196 years of Constitutional law.

Youss funny guy. :lamo
 
Guy Incognito said:
A better analogy is that I don't like gambling with my primary source of income. Saving 23,000 jobs in the short term is not worth the risk of losing millions of jobs, potentially for decades in the future. It's a simple cost benefit analysis, which you'd think somebody who purports to understand the economics would be able to wrap their head around.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, these jobs will be gone permanently or for many yrs. not short term. Am I correct, oil guys?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I don't drive that much, so I'm fine with paying more. I think we should be paying the actual cost of gasoline, personally, rather than having the hidden pricetag that flows through foreign wars, etc. We might have very different fuel consumption habits if we did, and get over our unhealthy addiction to oil.

Yes, I am a fascist treehugger. ;)
Click to expand...

Liberals are the ones who are supposed to "care" so much for the poor. Yet they say things like I don't drive much, I walk a lot, my job's close, I'm willing to pay more to save the planet, 23,000 jobs gone is better than a chance of an oil spill, gas prices need to be artificially raised to force people into electric cars..... blah blah blah
Glad to see you care about the little guy who is barely making ends meet.
This Moretorium is a bigger disaster than the spill. Geez, I can't wait til this job killing president is out of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom