ries

Quote :

"House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live. Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply. They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow. At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that "there were multiple reasons for the postponement" including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments. Here are the highlights from briefing Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling 1115 We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market. Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markup 1119 I think there aren't enough votes for the Peterson amendment. It wasn't taken up (the Interior spending bill) because of the omnibus Appropriations bill. That's the main focus of the Appropriations Committee. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) 1116 They (Republicans) have a one-trick pony approach. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Resources Committee 1106 You cannot drill your way out of this. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming 1111 The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place. Markey 1123 The governors of California and the governors of Florida are going to scream this is not the way to go. [except that's not true. Crist is for it.] Hinchey 1125 There are a lot of arrows in the President's quiver that he decided not use. Hinchey 1128 What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations. Emanuel 1131 It's like when I talk to my kids. Before we're going to talk about dessert, we've got to talk about what's on your plate. I hope I'm a little more successful with the oil industry than I am with my kids. Markey7 1132 There are so many red herrings out there they might as well construct an aquarium. From House Majoirity Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) when I asked him if the markup was cancelled because of potential Democratic defections on the Peterson amendment.. "No. The reason the markups aren't going through is because we're trying to get the supplemental on the floor tomorrow." Andfrom a Senior Republican House Appropriations Aide.. "There were multiple reasons for the postponement including ongoing negotiations on the (supplemental) and a (Democratic) wish to avoid debate and votes on the energy amendments. "

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18

Think very long and very hard about for whom you cast your ballot. These people will try to own every single meaningful aspect of American life. They want your health. They want your energy supplies. They already have your retirement and roughly 20 - 40% of your paycheck.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2008 7:29:11 PM

Well shit. Let's just nationalize all private industry so that we know that we're always getting the best price for whatever we're buying.

6/18/2008 8:00:58 PM

They'd be better off closing the Enron loophole
http://www.closetheenronloophole.com/

6/18/2008 8:03:26 PM

is it still inappropriate to label dems as socialists?

Geez, these idiots cant run thier own food court and now they want our healthcare and our oil. Wake up people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg&feature=related

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2008 9:10:59 PM

I like the arguing over this. This is an interesting episode of American news.

6/18/2008 10:43:57 PM

I do not support this. But I am still probably gonna vote Democrat.

6/18/2008 11:02:04 PM

This cannot possibly end well.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 11:27 PM. Reason : if it were to pass, that is]

6/18/2008 11:26:55 PM

There are 435 members in congress, and a fair amount of them are idiots. I would be very surprised if this came anywhere close to passing.

6/19/2008 12:57:26 AM

if barack wins and does that "manhatten" style project we might not even need oil soon lol

6/19/2008 2:02:46 AM

I could maybe get behind the idea if we were in some sort of real national crisis. God only knows we've done similar things before in such situations, and liberal capitalism didn't collapse as a result. But this -- if I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing -- would be overreaching.

6/19/2008 3:02:31 AM

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

FYI:

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back

Quote :

"BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations."

Quote :

"For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world's dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity. While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the world's oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts. The Iraqi government's stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency. For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 6:31 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2008 6:24:16 AM

The cynic in me thinks that Iraq will have these guys for a couple years, they'll invest in infrastructure, and then come the next Iraqi elections, some populist party will get up and say "this oil belongs to Iraq, not the Americans", and then that party will win the elections. That's the danger of democracy and why monarchs and dictators were always preferred. It's the only thing in their country that's worth anything after all. I suppose our oil companies could shower and bribe the politicians there like various businesses, activist groups, and private individuals do here to try and buy them off.

And if oil is ever nationalized, it'd be a Republican doing it, in a "only Nixon could go to China" moment.

6/19/2008 10:01:53 AM

Quote :

"The Iraqi government's stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. "

Thats the real reason. Our companies found the oil and built the rigs to get it out only to be removed years later. The same thing will no doubt happen again, after we modernize thier facilities.(not to mention thier country)

6/19/2008 2:14:13 PM

Quote :

"They'd be better off closing the Enron loophole"

6/19/2008 2:34:27 PM

Quote :

"and then come the next Iraqi elections, some populist party will get up and say "this oil belongs to Iraq, not the Americans", and then that party will win the elections. That's the danger of democracy"

"danger"? so you'd rather be an imperialist than spread democracy?


and hooksaw, with the following evidence:

Quote :

"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th"

are we in agreement for why we're over there?

6/19/2008 2:48:54 PM

as americans deal with high gas prices, this is one of the things being discussed in the house of reps today http://maloney.house.gov/documents/workingfamilies/fedleave/CRSMemoonBillHR578120080429.pdf

6/19/2008 3:02:52 PM

i'd rather not spread democracy, as it is easily turned into tyranny at a moment's notice. I'd much rather spread republicanism.

6/19/2008 7:22:09 PM

Quote :

""danger"? so you'd rather be an imperialist than spread democracy? "

"Danger" as in that's why we supported dictators, they're not accountable to anyone or public will, they can do as we tell them and we don't have to worry about foreign politics or "the will of the people" being against American interests.

The British and American foreign offices once upon a time overthrew the democratically-elected and secular leader of Iran because he ran in a legal election on the premise of nationalizing Iranian oil. He won said election. We busted a Hitler sympathizer out of jail and installed him as Shah. And the Shah killed everyone that opposed him save the religious zealots cause you can't kill the religious zealots when it's the religion of the majority of the population, while toeing the British and American line on what they wanted.

The world is a cruel place. There's no rainbows over the horizon. We don't join hands with the poor and hand them a Coke. There's not rivers of honey. It's everyone for themselves and if you have to hurt someone to help yourself, so be it. That's how geopolitics works. It's also why I don't think Iraqi democracy will last. The first notion when the interests of the Saudis, the United States, Iran, or Britain are being hurt by Iraqi democracy (the last two to a smaller extent), before you know it some military general will come in and appoint himself dictator in a coup. It's happened hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times throughout the history of mankind.

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 8:55 PM. Reason : /]

6/19/2008 8:46:04 PM

Quote :

"I could maybe get behind the idea if we were in some sort of real national crisis. God only knows we've done similar things before in such situations, and liberal capitalism didn't collapse as a result. But this -- if I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing -- would be overreaching."

What? Even in a national crisis? WHAT THE FUCK DOES CONGRESS EVEN BEGIN TO KNOW ABOUT REFINING OIL THAT THE OWNERS OF THOSE REFINERIES DON'T ALREADY KNOW?

They cannot possibly be more efficient or better at refining oil than the people who have spent a lifetime refining oil.

6/20/2008 8:22:55 AM