Been that way for 50 years. No reason to expect change. We get the government we want. We can change things any time the majority wish to do so.
Unless we are willing to do all those things you listed and strengthen the dollar, it's going to be tough economic sledding.
If there's a pattern there it may be lost on some people.
No doubt.
What sort of subsidies have oil companies received over the years, and who pushed for them?
If the oil was on public land, and you found a private contractor who'd extract it for a cut of the profits, would you have an objection to the government selling the oil?
"If the oil was on public land, and you found a private contractor who'd extract it for a cut of the profits, would you have an objection to the government selling the oil?" Absoutley not. Democrats would, though.
As Hannity puts it, they're the "Party of NO."
Dan - thank you for your answer. I think when you phrase the question as public-owned resources, and insert that magic-dust of a private company bidding to extract the resource, people change their answers. So are you opposed to nationalized oil schemes, like they do in a few South American and Northern European countries? What's the difference? The magic dust?
Remember the true platform of the Dems.
1) We have everything it takes to take everything you have; and,
2) Is what we're doing good for America and Americans? We don't care!
The above post is proof of their commitment to the platform.
"If the oil was on public land, and you found a private contractor who'd extract it for a cut of the profits, would you have an objection to the government selling the oil?"
I'm with Dan. No, I would have no objection to a private contractor getting a cut of the profits for extracting oil. Seems only fair to me because extraction is expensive. The only stipulation I would require of them is to impact the surrounding land as little as possible and to put it back into good shape once they have extracted all the oil.
And yes, I am opposed to nationalist oil schemes. No majic dust necessary. Anything the government can do, private individuals can do better, and they deserve a cut of the profits for doing it better. Nationalistic oil schemes are for communists and socialists, not for a free capitalistic system.
John, nationalized oil schemes assume that all the oil is on government land. In the lower 48, most of the oil is on private property.
But the feds already own oil, especially in Alaska. For me, it would be like logging in National Forests. The feds own the land and trees but allow private companies to come in and harvest the trees.
I'm eager to defend capitalism, Rose - most die-hard capitalists I know defend it from a standpoint of justice, not efficiency that would apply in every individual case.
We can't deny that there are great resources that previous generations put in public ownership. I think there are plenty of interesting questions about how to conserve, harvest, sell or profit from that class of resources.
And Mr. Badger, ye gads, tell me why your two points don't apply to Republicans - and use examples, not hot air.
John:
Stop the presses. I actually agree with something you said! Conservation is good, I believe that.
However we as a country cannot conserve oil without at least LOOKING for more supply, because at some point we still run into the same problem.The supply running out. Or having to rely on foreign sources.
We can play this game, but the question I believe the Foust is posing is a good one: were the deals that were blocked voted down because of blind conservation or because they were sweetheart deals that would let the oil companies pay the public a pittance for extracting oil on public land. Yes, ANWAR and most costal waters are public or gov't owned land.
Does the "blocked oil refineries" claim refer to the voting down of a bill that would have subsidized the refineries? It seems like companies making billions of dollars a quarter could and should pay for something that will allow them to sell more oil.
Commenting by HaloScan
