• 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!

Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

ANWR wouldn't make any difference at all.... except of course to all the workers who would get jobs, and the governments which would get increased revenue.

ANWR plus shale oil plus opening up all our coasts? :D NOW we're cooking with gas.
 
cpwill said:
ANWR wouldn't make any difference at all.... except of course to all the workers who would get jobs, and the governments which would get increased revenue.

ANWR plus shale oil plus opening up all our coasts? :D NOW we're cooking with gas.
Click to expand...

"The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which passed 266 to 144 with 33 Democrats buying into the scheme, orders the Department of the Interior to move quickly to offer three leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia. The bill demands that the leases be executed by next year.

But the legislation won't reduce the price at the pump, experts said. Nor would a vastly more ambitious effort have much impact.

"It's not going to change the price of oil overnight, and it's probably not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil ever," said Mike Lynch of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. referring not just to those four leases, but to expanding all U.S. drilling."
More U.S. Oil Drilling Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say
 
three whole leases? gosh, it's hard to imagine how that couldn't possibly change everything :roll:
 
cpwill said:
three whole leases? gosh, it's hard to imagine how that couldn't possibly change everything :roll:
Click to expand...

Selective reading strikes again! Notice the part in bold this time -

"It's not going to change the price of oil overnight, and it's probably not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil ever," said Mike Lynch of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. referring not just to those four leases, but to expanding all U.S. drilling."
 
cpwill said:
really. The US didn't grow in the 90's? in the 20's? in the 50's?

ex1.bmp
Click to expand...
Notice I said the reagan admin and did not mentiuon the 90's or 20s or 50's

By the way what the 90s and 20 famous for? Stock market bubbles, fueling consumer spending.
:lolyeah, I'm sure that the largest tax cuts in US history had nothing whatsoever to do with it :) instead it was deficit spending that spiked when revenues fell - because revenue fell - and then fell as we recovered and the economy grew.

we grew inspite of the spending, not because of it. you just plain don't increase productivity by taking capital from your efficient sectors and putting it in your inefficient ones.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you measure productivity and economic growth. Growth led by consumer spending based on increasing debt is not healthy growth, yet it is measured as such. That has been the majority of US growth in the last 30 years. Truely wealth building productivity gains in the US has been minor. Productivity gains based on financial transactions has increased, but they are not net wealth builders
 
fyi:

there's been a lot of congressional movement on the drilling front this week, and this morning president slasher dropped a bombshell in what for generations has been called the president's weekly radio address

it went like this:

first, the senate hauled the big 5 before baucus' finance committee to dig at those insidious subsidies

Democrats, oil executives face off at hearing - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

mr's shell and exxon kicked back consistently---cutting our breaks will kill jobs and increase pump prices

the proceedings got a bit preposterous

From ponies to unicorns, oil hearing is a zoo - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

bottom line: cuzza republicans and "oil state democrats" the plan is "likely to sink in the end"

landrieu was the loudest

RealClearPolitics - Video - Dem Senator: "Ridiculous" To Take Away Oil Subsidies

meanwhile, downstairs boehner's boys and broads tallied their trifecta---three drill bills for alaska, the california coast, the atlantic and gulf

House completes oil drilling trifecta - Dan Berman - POLITICO.com

the trifecta was expected to stonewall, "the white house had announced its opposition to all three bills"

but sometime between yesterday and this morning the slasher transformed it appears as thoroughly as ksm after a month of eit's in some secret prison in eastern europe

today:

Facing continued public unhappiness over gas prices, President Barack Obama is directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast and holding more frequent lease sales in a federal petroleum reserve in Alaska. Mr. Obama said Saturday that the measures "make good sense" and will help reduce U.S. consumption of imported oil in the long term. But he acknowledged anew that they won't help to immediately bring down gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon in many parts of the country.

His announcement followed passage in the Republican-controlled House of three bills that would expand and speed up offshore oil and gas drilling. Republicans say the bills are aimed at easing gasoline costs, but they also acknowledge that won't be immediate. The White House had announced its opposition to all three bills, saying the measures would undercut safety reviews and open environmentally sensitive areas to new drilling.

But President Obama is adopting some of the bills' provisions. Answering the call of Republicans and Democrats from Gulf Coast states, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that he would extend all Gulf leases that were affected by a temporary moratorium on drilling imposed after last year's BP oil spill. That would give companies additional time to begin drilling.

The administration had been granting extensions case by case, but senior administration officials said the Interior Department would institute a blanket one-year extension. New safety requirements put in place since the BP spill also have delayed drilling in Alaska, so President Obama said he would extend lease terms there for a year as well. Lease sales in the western and central Gulf of Mexico that were postponed last year will be held by the middle of next year, the same time period required by the House. A sale off the Virginia coast still would not happen until 2017 at the earliest. But President Obama said he would speed up environmental reviews so that seismic studies to determine how much oil and gas lies off the Atlantic Coast can begin.

To further expedite drilling off the Alaskan coast, where such plans by Shell Oil Co. have been delayed by an air pollution permit, President Obama said he would create an interagency task force to coordinate the necessary approvals. He also will hold annual lease sales in the vast National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska's North Slope.
Click to expand...

Obama to speed up U.S. oil production - CBS News

encourage dependence, anyone?
 
The Prof said:
fyi:

there's been a lot of congressional movement on the drilling front this week, and this morning president slasher dropped a bombshell in what for generations has been called the president's weekly radio address

it went like this:

first, the senate hauled the big 5 before baucus' finance committee to dig at those insidious subsidies

Democrats, oil executives face off at hearing - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

mr's shell and exxon kicked back consistently---cutting our breaks will kill jobs and increase pump prices

the proceedings got a bit preposterous

From ponies to unicorns, oil hearing is a zoo - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com

bottom line: cuzza republicans and "oil state democrats" the plan is "likely to sink in the end"

landrieu was the loudest

RealClearPolitics - Video - Dem Senator: "Ridiculous" To Take Away Oil Subsidies

meanwhile, downstairs boehner's boys and broads tallied their trifecta---three drill bills for alaska, the california coast, the atlantic and gulf

House completes oil drilling trifecta - Dan Berman - POLITICO.com

the trifecta was expected to stonewall, "the white house had announced its opposition to all three bills"

but sometime between yesterday and this morning the slasher transformed it appears as thoroughly as ksm after a month of eit's in some secret prison in eastern europe

today:



Obama to speed up U.S. oil production - CBS News

encourage dependence, anyone?
Click to expand...
Obama is just placating the ignorant masses. His new policies will have zero effect on the ever changing price of gasoline. It will just stop the whiny crybabies that think we can drill our way back to 50 cents a gallon gas.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Notice I said the reagan admin and did not mentiuon the 90's or 20s or 50's
Click to expand...

economic law is economic law

By the way what the 90s and 20 famous for? Stock market bubbles, fueling consumer spending
Click to expand...

the 1920's are not what gave us the 1930's. the government's stupid response to the 1930's is what gave us the 1930's.

but note that you don't refute the point - when government spending (and deficits) were reduced, the economy grew faster.

Growth led by consumer spending based on increasing debt is not healthy growth, yet it is measured as such.
Click to expand...

on that we are agreed. ditto for government spending based on increasing debt, with the added point that government spending also reduces private investment.

That has been the majority of US growth in the last 30 years. Truely wealth building productivity gains in the US has been minor. Productivity gains based on financial transactions has increased, but they are not net wealth builders
Click to expand...

productivity gains are absolutely wealth builders. they instantly move some resources into more productive venues, and free up others to go in search of even more.
 
cpwill said:
productivity gains are absolutely wealth builders. they instantly move some resources into more productive venues, and free up others to go in search of even more.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Sometimes they instantly move resources into the unemployment line. Increase in productivity lead to lower prices or higher profits.
 
yes, necessarily. freed up resources don't go wander around the beach, drinking mai-tais, and thinking about calling their agent and maybe one day getting back into the game - they are ruthlessly shoved back into competition.

but usually competition squeezes productivity gains typically into lower prices or maintenance costs. for example, we just experienced huge productivity gains over the past couple of years as businesses desperately sought ways to tigten their belts without firing people. those increases in resources went straight to maintaining the workforce. profit increases too, but first you have to remain competitive and remain in operation, and those two items have first dibs.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
yes, necessarily. freed up resources don't go wander around the beach, drinking mai-tais, and thinking about calling their agent and maybe one day getting back into the game - they are ruthlessly shoved back into competition.

but usually competition squeezes productivity gains typically into lower prices or maintenance costs. for example, we just experienced huge productivity gains over the past couple of years as businesses desperately sought ways to tigten their belts without firing people. those increases in resources went straight to maintaining the workforce. profit increases too, but first you have to remain competitive and remain in operation, and those two items have first dibs.
Click to expand...

What planet do you live on? The first things businesses did to tighten their belts was lay off people to cut costs. Businesses that laid off employees as a last resort were the exception.
 
cutting costs =/= firing people. although sometimes that becomes necessary - it's typically one of the last things companies look at, because it involves a loss of production power, invested capital, and competitive edge; as well as destroying morale and reducing the effeciency of the remaining workforce.

firing people first is bad business.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Obama is just placating the ignorant masses
Click to expand...

heckuva way to run a country

especially in times like these

leadership, anyone?

vote obama, 2012!

you're ignorant masses!
 
cpwill said:
cutting costs =/= firing people. although sometimes that becomes necessary - it's typically one of the last things companies look at, because it involves a loss of production power, invested capital, and competitive edge; as well as destroying morale and reducing the effeciency of the remaining workforce.

firing people first is bad business.
Click to expand...

People are a major cost to business. Most companies would just as soon have no employees if they could get away with it. Machines or outsourcing American workers to third world countries are the current preferred methods of cost cutting. I don't know what country you live in but that's the way it is. Companies are in business to maximize profits not provide jobs.
I have worked for major corporations for 35 years. I have seen it all.

PS they never call it "firing". Downsizing..........layoff.....crew adjustment........
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
heckuva way to run a country

especially in times like these

leadership, anyone?

vote obama, 2012!

you're ignorant masses!
Click to expand...

Man, he is doing exactly what you've been crying for him to do and you even complain about that.
 
Dirty Harry said:
People are a major cost to business. Most companies would just as soon have no employees if they could get away with it.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. people are the source of innovation and growth. most companies have no problem reducing their costs, and personnel are often the largest single cost that's true.

none of which has any relevance on the fact that firings are often a last resort, not a first one. productivity is increased through efficiency, not loss of production.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Obama is just placating the ignorant masses. His new policies will have zero effect on the ever changing price of gasoline. It will just stop the whiny crybabies that think we can drill our way back to 50 cents a gallon gas.
Click to expand...

Exactly! He is using the old Republican election tactic, drill, baby drill! :sun
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah, so at least you admit that your statement was revisionist.

And seeing as I did limit my statements to his position on energy, your response was useless partisan nonsense.
Click to expand...


Oh come on man....What the hell do you expect in a political forum. Sometimes you people really amaze me in the leaps and back bending exercises you pull off. Partisan? of course it is. I got a hint for ya, if it weren't this site would fail. It would be NO fun at all. You get mad at someone's partisanship, when in all the years I have been contributing to these sites I have been consistent in my beliefs, and approach. To the point of never changing my name so that people know exactly who I am. Can you say the same Mr. Case? Mr. Independent? Mr. Moderate? Or what ever affiliation you hide your belief system behind?

Carter was a disaster. I lived through his misery, and hope to never see that crap again. So, instead of hold up for the moment the WORST President to ever fart in that chair, go back and study where the country was at that time with honest eyes, if you can, and then call someone partisan....What a joke.


j-mac
 
So, what lean is Tucker? Whenever I've noticed him, he was supporting the free market; I don't recall other standpoints.
 
ecofarm said:
So, what lean is Tucker? Whenever I've noticed him, he was supporting the free market; I don't recall other standpoints.
Click to expand...


He can be confusing. I think for the most part he does support a free market, but there are times I guess when mass media liberal creep gets in and he follows the general talking point. For the most part I leave him alone unless he makes an incredible statement about me like he did earlier...

I mean really, I'm partisan? I didn't know that.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
He can be confusing. I think for the most part he does support a free market, but there are times I guess when mass media liberal creep gets in and he follows the general talking point. For the most part I leave him alone unless he makes an incredible statement about me like he did earlier...

I mean really, I'm partisan? I didn't know that.

j-mac
Click to expand...

For the guy who I seem to remember quoting Conservapedia as a source...

You're about as partisan as it gets mate.
 
American said:
Carter Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here educate yourself on the Carter Doctrine.
Click to expand...

So? What does that have to do with his energy plan that Reagan scrapped as soon as he took office to protect oil company profits. The fact is Carter came up with a comprehensive energy plan that was beginning to work. Rightwing nut jobs ignore that fact and still claim he was the worst president ever. The worst president ever was the one that abandoned the energy plan and is responsible for the energy mess we are in today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom