Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: John McCain, More of The Same

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157

    John McCain, More of The Same

    Talk about being in the oil industry's pocket. McCain is now saying he opposes a farm bill that will create an abundance of ethanol in our country and make it a viable alternative fuel, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_farm_policy[/url]

    Unlike oil, ethanol is a renewable energy that we can produce an abundance of right here in our own backyards. It's cheaper and the $ we spend on it would be staying here in the USA instead of going to Saudi oil sheiks who hate us and will forward a big chunk of it to Al Queda and the Taliban.

    Ofcourse the oil companies which control the GOP are against it because ethanol will be cheaper product than unleaded gas and oil. Why should Exxon cut down on its record profits to help out the American people?

    John McCain voted against tax credits for more fuel efficient cars, he's voted against alternative fuels in the past and now he's coming right out and saying he will veto this bill - thus keeping us dependent on foreign oil.

    But hey, he has this great energy plan where we'll start looking for oil and drilling everywhere and maybe in the year 2025 the price of unleaded gas will go down 2 cents.

    I am so looking forward to 4 more years of George W. Bush.

  2. #2
    Ethanol is not a viable alternative, and the only thing it does it increase the cost of food. Ethanol is not the future of Energy any more than Oil is.

    Ethanol, in general, is the same kind of corporate welfare every gets up in arms about when it comes to Oil, except instead of Amerca's "Evil Big Oil" getting the money, it's America's "Evil Big AgraBusiness".

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2669269]Ethanol is not a viable alternative, and the only thing it does it increase the cost of food. Ethanol is not the future of Energy any more than Oil is.

    Ethanol, in general, is the same kind of corporate welfare every gets up in arms about when it comes to Oil, except instead of Amerca's "Evil Big Oil" getting the money, it's America's "Evil Big AgraBusiness".[/QUOTE]

    Except the "Evil Big Agrabusiness" is an industry that's based here in America comprised of farmers and local invstors. I'd rather give them money than give it to Saudi Oil Sheiks and dictators in the Middle East and South America who hate us.

    E-85 is cheaper than unleaded gas, it's renewable (the world only has a finite amount of oil), and there are a variety of different crops that can be used to generate it. Corn is only one source. There's another source called switchgrass that if used produces 5 times the amount of ethanol that corn does.

    We currently have over a $100 billion annual oil trade deficit. The US Commerce Department estimates that for every $1 billion of our oil trade deficit our economy loses 19,100 jobs. I wouldn't mind our government putting some corporate welfare in the mid-west to cut into those figures.

    It's easy to see why oil companies are against Ethanol. They'd have to install more filling pumps at gas stations plus Ethanol is at least 10% cheaper than gas and a big chunk of their profits would be going to those farmers.

    Oil is a finite resource, which means eventually our country as well as the rest of the world is going to have to use a different energy source. Ethanol is already here and eventually we're going to have to convert to it.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    13,529
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2669336]Except the "Evil Big Agrabusiness" is an industry that's based here in America comprised of farmers and local invstors. I'd rather give them money than give it to Saudi Oil Sheiks and dictators in the Middle East and South America who hate us.

    E-85 is cheaper than unleaded gas, it's renewable (the world only has a finite amount of oil), and there are a variety of different crops that can be used to generate it. Corn is only one source. There's another source called switchgrass that if used produces 5 times the amount of ethanol that corn does.

    We currently have over a $100 billion annual oil trade deficit. The US Commerce Department estimates that for every $1 billion of our oil trade deficit our economy loses 19,100 jobs. I wouldn't mind our government putting some corporate welfare in the mid-west to cut into those figures.

    It's easy to see why oil companies are against Ethanol. They'd have to install more filling pumps at gas stations plus Ethanol is at least 10% cheaper than gas and a big chunk of their profits would be going to those farmers.

    Oil is a finite resource, which means eventually our country as well as the rest of the world is going to have to use a different energy source. Ethanol is already here and eventually we're going to have to convert to it.[/QUOTE]


    You just proved why increased drilling for oil is the best answer right now. Ethanol is a joke. The only thing it has done is increase food prices. Plus ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gas and produces more emmissions. Plus your whole theory of gas prices not dropping till 2025 is simply moronic. Look at what has happened to oil prices in the last 2 weeks. The fact that lifting the ban on drilling has picked up a lot of support in this country..has speculators taking action already....what do you think will happen when they actually start drilling??? Do some research and stop repeating everything you hear in an Obama ad.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=sec.101row23;2669350]You just proved why increased drilling for oil is the best answer right now. Ethanol is a joke. The only thing it has done is increase food prices. Plus ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gas and produces more emmissions. Plus your whole theory of gas prices not dropping till 2025 is simply moronic. Look at what has happened to oil prices in the last 2 weeks. The fact that lifting the ban on drilling has picked up a lot of support in this country..has speculators taking action already....what do you think will happen when they actually start drilling??? Do some research and stop repeating everything you hear in an Obama ad.[/QUOTE]


    The drop in prices in the last two weeks has absolutely nothing to do with drilling and everything to do with demand. High prices are causing people to drive less --and use less gas-- and that's why prices are falling. It's that simple.

    According to this story, U.S. drivers logged 9.6 billion fewer miles in May than the year before, the largest percentage decrease ever recorded for that usually travel-heavy month.

    Prices always fall when demand drops.

    [url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-07-28-miles-driven-may_N.htm[/url]

    [QUOTE]U.S. drivers log 9.6B fewer miles in May

    By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
    In the latest reflection of $4-a-gallon gas, Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May than in May 2007, a 3.7% decline that is the largest drop in miles traveled for any May, the federal government reported Monday.
    Traffic normally increases in May, which ends with the Memorial Day holiday weekend that marks the traditional start of the summer driving season. The decline was the third-largest monthly drop in the 66 years that the Federal Highway Administration has tracked miles driven.

    The data released Monday show that Americans drove 29.8 billion fewer miles in the first five months of this year compared with the same period last year, a 2.4% drop. The dip continues a seven-month trend beginning in November. Americans have driven 40.5 billion fewer miles from November through May compared with the same period a year earlier.

    Some analysts, including Alan Pisarski, author of Commuting in America, link the cutbacks to high gas prices and a slow economy.

    Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said the continued decline in driving signals long-term changes in the nation's transportation habits and highlights the need to find new ways to pay for roads and bridges. "Fewer trips are being made to conventional service stations, and we expect that to continue," Peters said. "Our approach to transportation in America needs to change."

    The federal Highway Trust Fund, which funds road construction with gas taxes, faces a $3.1 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2009 because drivers are buying less gas. Peters plans to unveil a plan in Atlanta today that will "refocus, reform and renew" the government's approach to transportation funding.

    If the trend continues, with Americans driving less but transit ridership surging, Peters said she expects priorities to shift. Now, most of the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax goes for highways and a much smaller amount for transit. "I would see more money going to transit and less to highways in the future," Peters said.

    Pisarski described the "real impact" of the decline in miles driven: "Those trips that are not being taken are directly affecting the economy."

    Contributing: Alan Levin [/QUOTE]

  6. #6
    Do you live near a ethanol plant, If you did you wouldn't think so highly of it.
    BTW Ethanol has driven up the price of gas, why you might ask because it takes 3 gallons of gasoline to make one gallon of ethanol! Just check your food bill and get back to us!

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2669336]Except the "Evil Big Agrabusiness" is an industry that's based here in America comprised of farmers and local invstors. I'd rather give them money than give it to Saudi Oil Sheiks and dictators in the Middle East and South America who hate us.

    E-85 is cheaper than unleaded gas, it's renewable (the world only has a finite amount of oil), and there are a variety of different crops that can be used to generate it. Corn is only one source. There's another source called switchgrass that if used produces 5 times the amount of ethanol that corn does.

    We currently have over a $100 billion annual oil trade deficit. The US Commerce Department estimates that for every $1 billion of our oil trade deficit our economy loses 19,100 jobs. I wouldn't mind our government putting some corporate welfare in the mid-west to cut into those figures.

    It's easy to see why oil companies are against Ethanol. They'd have to install more filling pumps at gas stations plus Ethanol is at least 10% cheaper than gas and a big chunk of their profits would be going to those farmers.

    Oil is a finite resource, which means eventually our country as well as the rest of the world is going to have to use a different energy source. Ethanol is already here and eventually we're going to have to convert to it.[/QUOTE]whats wrong with the oil industry...i own oil stocks i bet you do too.also McCain 52%-obama 46%...you heard here first brother.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bayonne, NJ
    Posts
    2,911
    neither candidate is going to change anything. Obama is a rookie and already has shown some errors in ethics while serving previously as Ilinois state senator. What we need (and the Dems & Repub will fight it tooth and nail) is a real strong 3rd party effort in all elections. What we need is campaign reform to allow the non-rich candidates to make a run, what we need is an election that does not start in the 3rd year of the existing president and primaries that stretch out an election so much that it loses good people along the trail.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2669372]The drop in prices in the last two weeks has absolutely nothing to do with drilling and everything to do with demand. High prices are causing people to drive less --and use less gas-- and that's why prices are falling. It's that simple.

    According to this story, U.S. drivers logged 9.6 billion fewer miles in May than the year before, the largest percentage decrease ever recorded for that usually travel-heavy month.

    Prices always fall when demand drops.

    [url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-07-28-miles-driven-may_N.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

    So in your view, only Demand effects price. Supply, and the promice of changes to supply, has "no effect", eh?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2669405]So in your view, only Demand effects price. Supply, and the promice of changes to supply, has "no effect", eh?[/QUOTE]



    It's not that it has no effect, but you are looking at "demand" too narrowly.

    In the time it will take to get that new oil online --say, seven years, which seems to be the federal government's best guess-- the growing Chinese and Indian middle classes are going to increase usage many, many times more than the new supply that comes in. The rates they are growing mean oil is going to become prohibitively expensive whether we drill for more or not.

    The only thing that we can do to meaningfully impact price going forward is to dramatically decrease our usage. Adding 1% or 2% more oil to the global mix, when global demand is going to increase exponentially relative to that, really won't do anything.

  11. #11
    Ethanol is retarded.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    13,529
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2669372]The drop in prices in the last two weeks has absolutely nothing to do with drilling and everything to do with demand. High prices are causing people to drive less --and use less gas-- and that's why prices are falling. It's that simple.

    According to this story, U.S. drivers logged 9.6 billion fewer miles in May than the year before, the largest percentage decrease ever recorded for that usually travel-heavy month.

    Prices always fall when demand drops.

    [url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-07-28-miles-driven-may_N.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

    Or when supply inceases.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    13,529
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2669423]It's not that it has no effect, but you are looking at "demand" too narrowly.

    In the time it will take to get that new oil online --say, seven years, which seems to be the federal government's best guess-- the growing Chinese and Indian middle classes are going to increase usage many, many times more than the new supply that comes in. The rates they are growing mean oil is going to become prohibitively expensive whether we drill for more or not.

    The only thing that we can do to meaningfully impact price going forward is to dramatically decrease our usage. Adding 1% or 2% more oil to the global mix, when global demand is going to increase exponentially relative to that, really won't do anything.[/QUOTE]

    I thought you just said demand decreased?? what is it?? Why is it that when a storm disrupts oil production in the gulf that the price of oil shoots up?? Wouldnt that just prove that increased drilling would lower prices??

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=sec.101row23;2669498]I thought you just said demand decreased?? what is it?? Why is it that when a storm disrupts oil production in the gulf that the price of oil shoots up?? Wouldnt that just prove that increased drilling would lower prices??[/QUOTE]

    Demand decreased in the near term, hence the near term price drop.

    Long-term, its a very different, very sad story. And it has very little to do with anything we do. China and India are going to be the most energy-thirsty economies ever created. As their middle classes grow --and they will grow enormously for decades no matter how ineptly they manage their economies-- they are going to start consuming energy the way we do, with a much deeper need.

    In the face of that, bringing 1% or 2% more oil online really is meaningless. The only step you can really take that will impact pricing is to dramatically decrease the amount you use. Our usage is our leverage because our production isn't all that significant in the scheme of the global market.

    That basically means converting as much non-transportation oil usage as possible to alternatives (solar, wind, biofuels, fuel cells, and I expect even a few nukes in there before its all said and done). And, on the transport side, raising mileage standards as much as possible.

    And, of course, keeping our tires inflated.:D

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2669457]Ethanol is retarded.[/QUOTE]

    SAJF and I never agree -- except now. Ethanol is and always was a bad idea.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=sec.101row23;2669498]I thought you just said demand decreased?? what is it?? Why is it that when a storm disrupts oil production in the gulf that the price of oil shoots up?? Wouldnt that just prove that increased drilling would lower prices??[/QUOTE]

    To answer your oil rig question, the price changes because the market had factored in that exact oil supply being online. When it suddenly vanishes, there's a gap in the supply chain and, with that, a short-term shortage. Energy is an enormously volatile commodity, it really jumps and falls at short-term developments, and tends to be somewhat nearsighted.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2669554]Demand decreased in the near term, hence the near term price drop.

    Long-term, its a very different, very sad story. And it has very little to do with anything we do. China and India are going to be the most energy-thirsty economies ever created. As their middle classes grow --and they will grow enormously for decades no matter how ineptly they manage their economies-- they are going to start consuming energy the way we do, with a much deeper need.

    In the face of that, bringing 1% or 2% more oil online really is meaningless. The only step you can really take that will impact pricing is to dramatically decrease the amount you use. Our usage is our leverage because our production isn't all that significant in the scheme of the global market.

    That basically means converting as much non-transportation oil usage as possible to alternatives (solar, wind, biofuels, fuel cells, and I expect even a few nukes in there before its all said and done). And, on the transport side, raising mileage standards as much as possible.

    And, of course, keeping our tires inflated.:D[/QUOTE]no way the chinese and indian middle classes can afford current energy prices.what is the price for a gallon over there?what is the mean income level? what % of this income will be for energy?

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    13,529
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2669554]Demand decreased in the near term, hence the near term price drop.

    Long-term, its a very different, very sad story. And it has very little to do with anything we do. China and India are going to be the most energy-thirsty economies ever created. As their middle classes grow --and they will grow enormously for decades no matter how ineptly they manage their economies-- they are going to start consuming energy the way we do, with a much deeper need.

    In the face of that, bringing 1% or 2% more oil online really is meaningless. The only step you can really take that will impact pricing is to dramatically decrease the amount you use. Our usage is our leverage because our production isn't all that significant in the scheme of the global market.

    That basically means converting as much non-transportation oil usage as possible to alternatives (solar, wind, biofuels, fuel cells, and I expect even a few nukes in there before its all said and done). And, on the transport side, raising mileage standards as much as possible.

    And, of course, keeping our tires inflated.:D[/QUOTE]

    Your long term sad, sad story is not really correct. As China and India cut back on the amount of money they subsidize on oil their demand will stop increasing at its current pace. Plus China drills a lot of oil already and are continuing to expand their drilling footprint. They see what their demand is and are drilling accordingly. There is no downside to expanding our drilling footprint. Doing nothing and hoping to convert wind or solar (which we have been doing since the 70s and its still not proven to be a substitute to oil) is only going to lead to having this discussion when gas is $10 a gallon.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2669423]It's not that it has no effect, but you are looking at "demand" too narrowly.

    In the time it will take to get that new oil online --say, seven years, which seems to be the federal government's best guess-- the growing Chinese and Indian middle classes are going to increase usage many, many times more than the new supply that comes in. The rates they are growing mean oil is going to become prohibitively expensive whether we drill for more or not.

    The only thing that we can do to meaningfully impact price going forward is to dramatically decrease our usage. Adding 1% or 2% more oil to the global mix, when global demand is going to increase exponentially relative to that, really won't do anything.[/QUOTE]

    A few questions then:

    --Why are you taking the Federal Governments Estimate? The Oil Companies have said they could exploit it much faster than the Govt. estimate, and in matters of "how long will it take" I trust teh Oil Companes and their experience over the Govt. Beauracrats, who see everythign in terms of decades, not years.

    --Second, Why not legislate that ALL Oil gained from these new drilling be required to stay in the U.S. and dispalce foreign imports? There is no law against protectionism, if it's appropriate.

    --Third, you claim the "growing Indian and Chineese Middle Class" will eat up more than we get.......and that may or may not even be true to start, those groups are growing, but no one knows the future enough to guarantee they will continue to do so. Any additional supply will help to minimize price increases. Even if more drilling simply keeps prices stable, instead of rising each year, how is that bad?

    You also keep going back to Democrat-fed talking points on how much and how long it will take, and I just can't talk to folks who so slavishly take their "facts" from Democrat Party Memorandum. again, when it comes to issues of Oil, I'll take the 12 Billion in Profit Exxon Miobil opinuion before I take the 30 Billion in Taxation Federal Government. Thsui far, they''ve sat on their asses (both parties) for years letting this seethe and rot, whilst the American taxpayer pays for Environemntal Extremism and Environmental Special Interest Groups.

    The fact here is that you must beleive drillign will have no impact, or you cannot support the Democrats. You must buy into their propaganda, or else how could you rationalize a Party who was elected on lowering gas prices, and has done nothing while gas prices almost doubled. How could you support a party who seems to be doing what will get them elected, and now hat will serve theri citizenry. How can you support a party whose entire Energy plan is "Cross yer Fingers and Pray Alt Fuel comes sooner rather that Later, and lets tax everyone we can to help it along, and screw teh reality "on the ground" when it comes to Oil Use" all to please the Environemntal Fringe who think the World will pop like a baloon under a hairdryer in 6 months if all Oil isn;t made illegal.

    You, and the Dems, do not want real world solutions. You want (as Dems always do) absolute adherence to their singular ideals of the world. We can't drill for more Oil, cause Dems don;t believe in oil. We cannot build Nuke Plants, cause dems dont; believe in Nuke Plants. All we can do is talk a great game about Alt Fuel and Utopian Dreams of electric cars today! and All Solar Houses Today! But they never mention how they'll (or we'll) pay for it, how long THAT will take, and how we all will ahve to get by till then with what we got.

    No, for a Dem, and a Dem supporter, it's easier to simply vomit up talking points "Drilling will take 1000 years, and no effect supply for 10,000 years, ane even then it will onyl lower prices $0.000000001 a Gallon if that! Hurumph, harumph! Alt-Fuel will save us Today at No Cost to You (except 95% taxation to fund it, dicovery or not)!"

    Like on every issue, the Dem Mantra is "Results do not matter, only good intentions". it was easy to be that idealistic when I was young, but it gets harder every day sitting watchign these losers do nothing while Americans starve for more enegry.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2669572]no way the chinese and indian middle classes can afford current energy prices.what is the price for a gallon over there?what is the mean income level? what % of this income will be for energy?[/QUOTE]

    The mean income level now is still very low, but both countries are creating enormous wealth at an absurd rate, the slowing of which is basically mathematically impossible during the next half century or so.

    The size of both nations means they could still be mostly impoverished while having a bigger middle class than we do, in terms of sheer numbers. And that means off the charts increases in energy consumption. They are growing far, far faster than we are and will continue to for the rest of my lifetime and yours, and their energy usage will rise along with it.

    Oil as the primary energy source for the world is not going to be sustainable with this sort of surge in demand.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us