Where is the US economy headed?

Yeah, talk to our "democratic buddies," when the adminstration and congress has been under the GOP for the past six years.

0 Replies

Whos been leading the charge to save the earth and throw up every roadblock in front of things like refineries for the last 40 years? Your fellow treehuggers in case you don't know it. I used to work for an oil company, and I saw it happen firsthand.

By the way, I am not complaining about gasoline prices. Its you guys that make them high and then complain. Make up your mind what you want.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Talk to your regulatory, Democratic buddies about making it easier to build a refinery. My guess is they have tried to build more refineries in the past, but the investment, including a boat load of lawyers to fight every study down to which rare spider might live there, and how many environmental groups will sue you for the next 25 years, just isn't hardly worth it anymore, and add to it the possible leveling off or decline of oil production. No ANWR production to process is one consideration.

If you are the only game in town, you do make a profit, imposter, thats the way the market works.

Sorry, we just think that those who create a product should be held responsible for cleaning up the waste produced during the course of that product's creation.

Can you tell me what's wrong with this attitude?

ANWR is a joke, a tiny drop in the bucket. We aren't seeing high prices right now from a lack of oil supply, either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ANWR is a joke, a tiny drop in the bucket. We aren't seeing high prices right now from a lack of oil supply, either.

Cycloptichorn

By your reasoning, most oil fields in the U.S., if not the world, are jokes. Do you advocate shutting them all down? We could start with all of them in Texas.

Apparently the naivity of your knowledge about oil production has no limits.

I don't ever want to hear you complain about oil or gasoline prices.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ANWR is a joke, a tiny drop in the bucket. We aren't seeing high prices right now from a lack of oil supply, either.

Cycloptichorn

By your reasoning, most oil fields in the U.S., if not the world, are jokes. Do you advocate shutting them all down? We could start with all of them in Texas.

No, I don't advocate shutting all the oil fields in the world down. I just don't want to see new ones drilled, in areas which are currently, yaknow, nice, which would do nothing to help our oil shortage problems. There is no upside to drilling there, except for oil companies looking to make money.

Quote:

Apparently the naivity of your knowledge about oil production has no limits.

Perhaps you meant my naiveté? Laughing

Insults are more effective when spelled correctly.

Quote:

I don't ever want to hear you complain about oil or gasoline prices.

I don't think it's good for the majority of folks in our society when the prices are high; but personally, it only increases the costs of my goods that I purchase, as I don't own nor operate a gasoline powered vehicle.

I'm not sure why I shouldn't be able to complain; because I'm right about ANWR, I can't complain about gas prices?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ANWR is a beautiful example of the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh no, do not drill in my back yard, go drill in the worthless deserts of the Middle East, or other countries of the world where it doesn't matter to me. In essence, you are saying our land is better, we as people are more important, and we are more arrogant than you. No wonder many Arabs despise many Americans! The arrogance and hypocrisy is glowingly evident. The footprint of wells in ANWR is miniscule compared to the total area of ANWR, and given our experience with drilling and production, minimal impacts would occur.

0 Replies

While the Arabs despise us for our hypocrisy, they continue to sell their oil. What's wrong with this picture?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

ANWR is a beautiful example of the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh no, do not drill in my back yard, go drill in the worthless deserts of the Middle East, or other countries of the world where it doesn't matter to me. In essence, you are saying our land is better, we as people are more important, and we are more arrogant than you. No wonder many Arabs despise many Americans! The arrogance and hypocrisy is glowingly evident. The footprint of wells in ANWR is miniscule compared to the total area of ANWR, and given our experience with drilling and production, minimal impacts would occur.

I don't think that has been our experience, actually. I think that there have been plenty of environmental impacts from oil drilling. Just ask BP, they are experiencing a huge problem with it right now, in the same region.

Last time I checked, we didn't force anyone in the ME to drill for oil or sell us the oil that they've decided to drill. They have the right to decide that their environmental situation is more important than oil, just as we have.

Remember what ANWR stands for? It's a wildlife refuge. That doesn't just go away because it turns out there's oil underneath their feet. Ridiculous to suggest that it would make any difference anyhow, in the long run; so why wreck a nice place for a useless gesture?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, we just think that those who create a product should be held responsible for cleaning up the waste produced during the course of that product's creation.

Well, you don't get it both ways. If legal issues (and uncertainty of future regulatory status definitely falls in here) make investments in new refineries a poor economic prospect, congratulations, you don't get to complain about the price of gasoline. Nobody wants to be the guy 90% through with building their refinery when the government suddenly mandates expensive new equipment for which they don't get grandfathered... ;p

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sorry, we just think that those who create a product should be held responsible for cleaning up the waste produced during the course of that product's creation.

Well, you don't get it both ways. If legal issues (and uncertainty of future regulatory status definitely falls in here) make investments in new refineries a poor economic prospect, congratulations, you don't get to complain about the price of gasoline. Nobody wants to be the guy 90% through with building their refinery when the government suddenly mandates expensive new equipment for which they don't get grandfathered... ;p

They aren't as poor an economic investment as you think; only compared to older refineries which didn't have such restrictions.

And, at some point, we have to have new refineries, not because they are money makers, but because we simply need to have newer and more clean production facilities. Why, I'd even be interested in tax incentives to make that happen - hear that? Shocked

I'm advocating for tax breaks for Oil Companies!!!!

WTF, how come I can bend but you all can't? lol

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

While the Arabs despise us for our hypocrisy, they continue to sell their oil. What's wrong with this picture?

Sure, they like the money, but they are not blind to our stupidity and hypocrisy. They must laugh when they see us shoot ourselves in the foot by not producing our own oil and instead paying them dearly for their oil, and they also see our hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
ANWR is a beautiful example of the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh no, do not drill in my back yard, go drill in the worthless deserts of the Middle East, or other countries of the world where it doesn't matter to me. In essence, you are saying our land is better, we as people are more important, and we are more arrogant than you. No wonder many Arabs despise many Americans! The arrogance and hypocrisy is glowingly evident. The footprint of wells in ANWR is miniscule compared to the total area of ANWR, and given our experience with drilling and production, minimal impacts would occur.

I don't think that has been our experience, actually. I think that there have been plenty of environmental impacts from oil drilling. Just ask BP, they are experiencing a huge problem with it right now, in the same region.

First of all, oil is a naturally occuring substance, for example there are many places in California where tar or oil saturated rock is naturally exposed at the surface. We do not need to recoil at the sight of a drop of oil, as being some terrible toxic and foreign substance. If it is so terrible in ANWR, why not shut down all the oil fields everywhere else?

Quote:

Last time I checked, we didn't force anyone in the ME to drill for oil or sell us the oil that they've decided to drill. They have the right to decide that their environmental situation is more important than oil, just as we have.

What a dumb statement. Nobody forces anyone to do anything, but if you think making a living or making a profit is nice, you do it. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the stuff. Nobody is forcing Walmart to sell anything, but funny thing, they like doing it and lots of people buy stuff there.

Quote:

Remember what ANWR stands for? It's a wildlife refuge. That doesn't just go away because it turns out there's oil underneath their feet. Ridiculous to suggest that it would make any difference anyhow, in the long run; so why wreck a nice place for a useless gesture?

Cycloptichorn

Just because Congress designates a piece of land with a name, does that make it sacred or something? Is it therefore more valuable than other producing areas around the world? Regardless of that point, your whole premises are based on the projection that producing oil will greatly damage the land and wildlife where it occurs, and also that the amount of land affected is significant compared to the entire refuge, and both premises are false. I have heard all the arguments about ANWR, and have looked at the oil reserve estimates, and basicly your viewpoint is bankrupt of common sense. ANWR has the capability of producing a significant amount of oil, which would not solve the problem of imports, but extremely crucial is the fact that it would take some pressure off of supply and price, and give us a small shot in the arm in the area of production, national security, and all of that. Any boost would prove to be extremely valuable.

0 Replies

Quote:

ANWR has the capability of producing a significant amount of oil, which would not solve the problem of imports, but extremely crucial is the fact that it would take some pressure off of supply and price, and give us a small shot in the arm in the area of production, national security, and all of that. Any boost would prove to be extremely valuable.

I suppose you can show numbers to back this up?

As I've seen it, ANWR would add 2-3% to total capacity. Big Whoop.

And I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the arguments that say it won't have a negative environmental impact. The same thing has been said many times and turned out to be untrue in the past, why should it be any different now?

Better to move on from oil, then to continue wasting our time on an old technology. But as a conservative, you're not used to looking to new solutions for things. Right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, I would need to dig up old numbers, but it is easy to do, cyclops. One quick reference indicates about 20 billion barrels left in U.S., so just 5 billion would increase our reserves by 25%, and it could be more than 5 billion, maybe 7 or so. Production of a million barrels or so per day would be significant, especially considering our domestic production is only about 5 or 6 million per day last I checked, and possibly dropping. If you consider this miniscule or a drop in the bucket, you need to go back to school and take some math.

This information is all so obvious and available, but the Democrats in Washington have blocked ANWR for a long time now. Yet they are the ones that are the most clueless when the price goes up or shortages occur. They are so totally clueless, or liars, one or the other, or both.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, I would need to dig up old numbers, but it is easy to do, cyclops. One quick reference indicates about 20 billion barrels left in U.S., so just 5 billion would increase our reserves by 25%, and it could be more than 5 billion, maybe 7 or so. Production of a million barrels or so per day would be significant, especially considering our domestic production is only about 5 or 6 million per day last I checked, and possibly dropping. If you consider this miniscule or a drop in the bucket, you need to go back to school and take some math.

This information is all so obvious and available, but the Democrats in Washington have blocked ANWR for a long time now. Yet they are the ones that are the most clueless when the price goes up or shortages occur. They are so totally clueless, or liars, one or the other, or both.

Can you link?

It seems to me that as we use somewhere around 7 billion barrels of oil a year in the US, and more than 2/3rds goes to transport, modest increases in fuel efficiency would have a far greater effect then increased drilling in maintaining our oil supply - and be better for the environment as well.

The prices right now, as Thomas pointed out, aren't up because of oil shortages. Even if we opened ANWR, it would take what, 10-12 years before it hit the market? We need to have positive changes much faster than this. By the time it is actually utilizable, we'll need new places to drill just to keep up with the NEW demand... it's a never-ending cycle.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I can catch the links later with time. In regard to drilling vs conservation, we will need to do all of the above to have a chance to help ourselves. Drill for more oil, conserve, switch to alternatives, all of it. You have to realize our domestic reserves are being depleted, so we need new reserves just to maintain the production we have.

To catch up on an old point, here is the answer I got from the Census Bureau in regard to poverty figures. The poverty line is before tax. So as I maintained, the big Bush rebates are not included, and so the graph you presented is comparing apples and oranges, cyclops, and is therefore not accurate. I am fairly confident that including tax rebates would throw a significant number of people out of the poverty category.

http://www.census.gov:80/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html

0 Replies

I read an article some months ago about dropping the speed limits to save on fuel, but nobody seems interested - especially our state and federal governments. There are too many handicaps about fuel efficiency when our government ignores the easy ones.

0 Replies

Can you imagine how much fuel can be saved only from timing street lights properly to reduce stop and goes? San Francisco has many streets timed to flow at 30mph, and it works!

0 Replies

Another idea.

My big fat American gas tax
Should Americans consider a big price hike in an attempt to reduce demand and transfer money from Big Oil to the general public?
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
May 21 2007: 4:35 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It seems completely counterintuitive: Raise the gasoline tax to help American commuters.

Motorists are already paying well over $3 a gallon, and there are signs that it's beginning to cut into demand and hurt consumer spending.

Should these prices be permanent?
Gasoline in-depth
Get ready for $4 gasoline

With prices at record high, demand and refining problems could push them much higher. Any relief in sight? (more)
The refinery crunch
When gasoline prices surge, a lack of refining capacity is often blamed. What's being done, and is it enough? (more)
6 ways to cut gas prices
From a big fat tax to more efficiency to boosting production, there are ways to do it - but which really stand a chance? (more)
Fuel economy wimps
Instead of ensuring that we use less gas, politicians and consumers take the easy way out, says Fortune's Alex Taylor. (more)

Video More video

CNN's Allan Chernoff visits Teaneck, New Jersey, to see who is buying gas (May 15)
Play video

But if a big gas tax was levied - like the $1 or $2 tax Europeans have to keep prices permanently over $3 or $4 a gallon - how could that possibly help American consumers?

One argument says a tax would crimp demand, lowering wholesale prices.

"Anybody with any brains has advocated that, but not the politicians." said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at the financial services company Oppenheimer.

Tell us what you think
Lower wholesale prices, which would mean less profits for oil firms, combined with a higher tax could transfer money from Big Oil to the government, which could then use the cash for public programs.

Consumers would have to pay the same amount - or even more than now - but at least that extra cash could be returned to them in some way.

0 Replies

christianparty.net/japansaving.htm

Personal Savings & Incomes

U.S. vs. Japan

History is Made: US Personal Savings rate goes negative for the first times since the Great Depression, down from 26% in 1944, at that same time that bankruptcies reach a record level.

Even with a net worth per household of a NEGATIVE $77,000 in the US, half a trillion dollars is taken from men taxpayers who earn it and handed over to single-mother households who spend it.

Japan's personal savings record:

Asia Week's Bottom Line: Japan saves 34% of GDP versus only 15% in the US.

Nomura Research: Japanese households saved an average of 23.9% of their incomes between 1980 and 1994.

Princeton Economic Institute: Japan's PSAs (Postal Savings Accounts) contained $10 trillion in 1996.

Fortune Magazine: Japan had $13 trillion in postal savings accounts in 1997.

International Monetary Fund: Japan's 1992 savings were 34% of GDP compared to only 11% in the US.

OECD: Japan's gross private savings rate is 28% of GDP.

The Japanese government web site reports:

The average Japanese family saved another $14,383.20 in the year 2000, adding another 64.5 trillion yen, or $587 billion to their savings.

The official Japanese worker's average monthly income of $9,819 in December 2000 was $5,037 higher than his average monthly living expenditure.

Average net worth per household in Japan in 1994 was $488,636 (compared to a NEGATIVE $77,000 in the US).

Possibly excluded from government estimates are Japan's personal savings in semi-private Postal Savings Accounts (PSAs).

Deposits in postal savings accounts now exceed $25 Trillion.

Of the world's top 52 commercial banks, 17 are Japanese with assets of $5.6 trillion

US mainstream media reports that Japanese economy is "on the verge of collapse" are wrong: such misrepresentation of the US economic disaster is irresponsible!

Compare the above to the official Japanese government figures.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know