Our great Democratic Congress

[yunt2ride]

Bush calls for the ban be lifted on offshore drilling and CONGRESS quickly rejects it.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/offshore_oil

[trx#9]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!
Why don't you  post where congress is trying to roll back the tax break that Bush gave the oil companies and he keeps vetoing it. 

[digginfool]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!

Damn, son.  When are you going to start thinking before you type?  So now you're trying to tell all of us it's not Bush, Cheney and all the Republicans; it's all the members of Congress making money from oil.  It's a government conspiracy, Democrats included (they do comprise the majority), raping the pockets of America over oil?  Please, you have got to get a hold of yourself. 

[big-daddy]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!

Damn, son.  When are you going to start thinking before you type?  So now you're trying to tell all of us it's not Bush, Cheney and all the Republicans; it's all the members of Congress making money from oil.  It's a government conspiracy, Democrats included (they do comprise the majority), raping the pockets of America over oil?  Please, you have got to get a hold of yourself. 

[trx#9]

They already have 32 million acres in the gulf that there not using on purpose. Do you really think they want to increase production do drop there profits. Duh!

Damn, son.  When are you going to start thinking before you type?  So now you're trying to tell all of us it's not Bush, Cheney and all the Republicans; it's all the members of Congress making money from oil.  It's a government conspiracy, Democrats included (they do comprise the majority), raping the pockets of America over oil?  Please, you have got to get a hold of yourself. 

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?
Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price after when he pleaded with them to increase oil production and them refusing too?
I'm neither rep or Dem, I look at everything with an open mind. I personally think there all corrupt but it see more with republicans.
Don't believe everything you here on talk radio, Beavis!

[AintSkeered]

As of the 2006 elections, there are 232 House Dems and 202 Republicans. In the Senate, there's 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, 1 Joe Lieberman and 1 Independent. So, you can't single-out any one party for their incompetence.

More interesting is the age, gender, ethnic and religious background of our Congressional leadership. In the Senate, there are 16 women, the highest number in history. There are 13 Jews, three Hispanics (Mel Martinez, R-FL; Bob Menendez, D-NJ; Ken Salazar, D-CO) two Asian Americans (Daniel Akaka, D-HI; Daniel Inouye, D-HI), one Arab American (John Sununu, R-NH), and one African American (Barack Obama, D-IL). The average age of Senators in 2007 is 62 years. The oldest Senator in 2007 is President pro tempore Robert Byrd (90); the youngest is John Sununu (43).

The 110th Congress includes the most religiously-diverse House in history, including the first Muslims (Keith Ellison and André Carson), the first Buddhists (Mazie Hirono and Hank Johnson), and 30 Jews. There are 42 African Americans (including two non-voting delegates) and 74 female representatives. There are also 27 Hispanics, three Asian Americans, and one Native American (Tom Cole, R-OK).

Communication and Diversity are over-rated! Actions(or lack thereof) speak louder than words.

[digginfool]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

[trx#9]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

You crack me up!






Oh' by the way who financed 9/11?

And keep up your insults, thats about all you got. Don't treat me like your wife, I don't play that game.

[budman]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

[digginfool]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

You crack me up!






Oh' by the way who financed 9/11?

And keep up your insults, thats about all you got. Don't treat me like your wife, I don't play that game.

If I'm Beavis, then you must be Butthead!!     Show me where the Saudis financed 9/11.  There were Saudis involved with Al Qaeda, but then again, there's at least one American as well.  Does that mean we financed our own attack?

[digginfool]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

Clearly, an informed voter.  Just like an informed consumer, informed voters can make intelligent decisions.   

[MedicMudder]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

  Budman you are soooooooo right !!!!!!!!!! and BHO will double the capitail gains tax.if it was not for the evil rich the world would come to a stand still.Think
bout it, has a poor person gave you a job?

                                                            And I am faaarrrr from rich I am a FireFighter/paramedic.

[FishaHallic]

Raising corporate taxes does not help. Big corporations do not pay tax. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase. This is why windfall profit taxes do not work. They merely pass it to us and this increases inflation, and also keeps them from re-investing in alternative energy resources. When my paper and ink prices go up...guess what? I raise my prices. Taxing business more does not work. Shrinking government does, that's why the Dems like to tax and grow government. BHO is another tax and spend liberal.

If I am not mistaken there are more people working in the U.S. gov't right now than there was when Bush took office, so I don't see a shrinking gov't at all.  At least if the Democrats are like you say "Tax and grow government" at least they are trying to raise the money to actually pay for the gov't, the republicans want to "borrow" the money and put off the bill for future generations (your kids, grandkids and their grandkids).  If anyone were to live beyond their means you republicans would be the first one to jump all over them for spending more than they earn but for some reason it's seems ok for the gov't to do that.

There was a thread a several months ago about the gov't considering bailing out home owners in trouble because of rising interest rates.   The same people that jumped all over any thought of the gov't bailing out homeowners spending beyond their means are the same ones that are now saying it's ok for "The Gov't" to live beyond its means and pass the bill to future generations, I don't get it?

[MedicMudder]

Hey fish,the list of things that Pres Bush has done to make me unhappy is long,spending money like a drunken sailor ,signing campain finance reform,
weak on illegal immigration.But on the war,tax cuts,he is on the ball.

[FishaHallic]

Your against campaign reform?

[digginfool]

There was a thread a several months ago about the gov't considering bailing out home owners in trouble because of rising interest rates.   The same people that jumped all over any thought of the gov't bailing out homeowners spending beyond their means are the same ones that are now saying it's ok for "The Gov't" to live beyond its means and pass the bill to future generations, I don't get it?

And now I quote (this being fact, not Democratic hopeful recollection)...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats and the White House are on a collision course over an ambitious proposal drafted to address the spreading mortgage crisis.

House Democrats and the Bush administration are at odds over a bill designed to help struggling homeowners.  The Bush administration calls the bill a "bailout," saying it "strongly opposes" the legislation sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat....


Need I say more?

[FishaHallic]

Diggin, this is the point I am trying to make.  I am not sure how to be more clear on this issue.  What I said was that many of you are up in arms over a possible bail out for homeowners who over step their bounds and can't afford their mortgage but you seem to think it is perfectly fine for the gov't to go into heavy debt and pass the burden of that debt to future generations.

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

[digginfool]

Diggin, this is the point I am trying to make.  I am not sure how to be more clear on this issue.  What I said was that many of you are up in arms over a possible bail out for homeowners who over step their bounds and can't afford their mortgage but you seem to think it is perfectly fine for the gov't to go into heavy debt and pass the burden of that debt to future generations.

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

As far as the government goes, I don't know how you can possibly believe Republicans create bigger government.  It's the Democrat's mantra to tax and spend.  Unfortunately, they don't spend money to secure the future of the country; they spend it on the least productive individuals living in the country.  It doesn't make sense.  Sure, it's so romantic to think of Robin Hood; stealing from the rich, giving to the poor.  But as MedicMudder stated above, when was the last time a poor man gave you a job?  You must pass laws that are favorable to industry in order to create an environment of growth.  History has proven time and again that a tax rebate to the poor will result in that money being spent frivolously.  A tax rebate to industry results in the building of new factories and the creation of jobs.  That's just the way it is.  If you really want to see this country go to hell, go ahead and vote for the tax and spend mentality.  Sure, we'll go to hell with free health insurance but I personally would rather have an environment that creates wealth, where those who are willing to go to work can afford their own health insurance (and mortgages and retirement funds, etc., etc., etc.).

[trx#9]

Who gave the oil companies a huge tax break his first 6 weeks in office?

Approved by Congress.

Who sold the Sadie's and Egyptians missiles for half price

Again, approved by Congress. 

You take an event from 8 years ago and try to argue that it's pertinent to todays events.  There are multiple reasons why those arm sales were made and none of them had to do with the price of oil today.  At the time, Saddam was an apparent threat to all the countries of the Middle East.  He had been defying UN sanctions for a decade and all the world was keeping a close eye on him.  In addition, his antics made his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, etc.) rather nervous and we had strategic reasons to keep the them secure.  More importantly, though, was the necessity to show that the U.S. was being impartial to Middle East events while at the same time securing Israel's future.  It's hard to act the part of mediator if you are showing partiality.  If the U.S. sold Israel $30 billion in arms, it was prudent to sell $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and $10 billion to Egypt to secure all of our interests in the area.  Also, the missles were not sold at half-price; the Saudis had a long-standing requirement that the U.S. reinvest at least 35% of the trade dollars back into Saudi Arabia, which still doesn't make it half-price.  So, my green toothed little snot nosed friend, you have proven again you don't have a clue. 

You crack me up!






Oh' by the way who financed 9/11?

And keep up your insults, thats about all you got. Don't treat me like your wife, I don't play that game.

If I'm Beavis, then you must be Butthead!!     Show me where the Saudis financed 9/11.  There were Saudis involved with Al Qaeda, but then again, there's at least one American as well.  Does that mean we financed our own attack?

If you didn't think the Saudis financed 9/11 then your a lost cause. Thats like old news man get with the program. I can't debate someone with no recollection of true facts. 

[FishaHallic]

Diggin, this is the point I am trying to make.  I am not sure how to be more clear on this issue.  What I said was that many of you are up in arms over a possible bail out for homeowners who over step their bounds and can't afford their mortgage but you seem to think it is perfectly fine for the gov't to go into heavy debt and pass the burden of that debt to future generations.

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

As far as the government goes, I don't know how you can possibly believe Republicans create bigger government.  It's the Democrat's mantra to tax and spend.  Unfortunately, they don't spend money to secure the future of the country; they spend it on the least productive individuals living in the country.  It doesn't make sense.  Sure, it's so romantic to think of Robin Hood; stealing from the rich, giving to the poor.  But as MedicMudder stated above, when was the last time a poor man gave you a job?  You must pass laws that are favorable to industry in order to create an environment of growth.  History has proven time and again that a tax rebate to the poor will result in that money being spent frivolously.  A tax rebate to industry results in the building of new factories and the creation of jobs.  That's just the way it is.  If you really want to see this country go to hell, go ahead and vote for the tax and spend mentality.  Sure, we'll go to hell with free health insurance but I personally would rather have an environment that creates wealth, where those who are willing to go to work can afford their own health insurance (and mortgages and retirement funds, etc., etc., etc.).

The proof is in the pudding  http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/0905politics_light.aspx

[GrizzlyGator]

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

Isn't is awesome....Now we have several senators who got "special attention" VIP loans when they went to borrow money for themselves from Countrywide Mortage Co....They unlike us regular folk got not only much lower rates but also got points taken off resulting in 10's of thousands of dollars in savings...the kicker here is that some of these senators are on the very committee that is investigating this whole mortage debacle and the lending practices of said Mortage Co. (Countrywide) ha ha ha!!!  makes me want to laugh and puke at the same time....these as*es must think we voters are ignorant...but then again we keep putting them back in office with or votes and apathy...I have lost all faith in our government's ability to lead and direct us in path that the forerunners of this great country laid out over two centuries ago...this lack of control, greed, self gratification...pandering (someone who caters to or exploits others desires or weaknesses)...is leading us down one slippery slope in my opinion...we can complain all day long about Bush and in a few months McCain Or Obama but that will do little good until us voters do something about the real people that run this country "Congress"..........REVOLUTION NOW!!

[digginfool]

And once you add in all the professional couch potatoes the Democrats have perpetuated, the federal work force (yeah, that's right... it takes effort to yell "Yo, beeatch.  Grab me another 4-0.  I'm going for a ride in my Escalade) becomes 10s of millions strong.    So much for that theory!  

C'mon trx, show me the proof where the Saudi government financed 9/11.  If it's old news, it should be easy to do.

[digginfool]

BTW, I don't think we should bail out homeowners who bought a house they can't afford any more than you do.  That does not mean though that the gov't can't do a little arm twisting with the banks and mortgage companies to try to keep from foreclosing on houses due to extremely high interest rates. 

It's interesting that you bring up this subject because that was exactly what we were discussing at lunch today.  My feelings are this; anybody who signed up for an ARM thinking interest rates were going down, deserves the position they are in.  An ARM serves a singular purpose for those who plan to flip a home in a rising market; it's a tool of greed.  These people may as well have gone to Vegas and gambled their future because that is the precise result of the decisions they made.  Too bad, so sad. 

Isn't is awesome....Now we have several senators who got "special attention" VIP loans when they went to borrow money for themselves from Countrywide Mortage Co....They unlike us regular folk got not only much lower rates but also got points taken off resulting in 10's of thousands of dollars in savings...the kicker here is that some of these senators are on the very committee that is investigating this whole mortage debacle and the lending practices of said Mortage Co. (Countrywide) ha ha ha!!!  makes me want to laugh and puke at the same time....these as*es must think we voters are ignorant...but then again we keep putting them back in office with or votes and apathy...I have lost all faith in our government's ability to lead and direct us in path that the forerunners of this great country laid out over two centuries ago...this lack of control, greed, self gratification...pandering (someone who caters to or exploits others desires or weaknesses)...is leading us down one slippery slope in my opinion...we can complain all day long about Bush and in a few months McCain Or Obama but that will do little good until us voters do something about the real people that run this country "Congress"..........REVOLUTION NOW!!

There is strong truth in your words, Kimosabe.  However, the banks tend to treat you favorably when you're borrowing money you don't need.  On top of that, there is almost always discounts available for friends, families and influential people and these discounts, while not offered to all people, are used all the time.  I speak from experience.  A very good friend of mine is a mortgage broker and my re-fi had no points and was 1/4% lower than the best rate advertised.  She literally saved me tens of thousands of dollars.

[JackL]

What you all are forgetting is it costs $2 to produce a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia. Drilling here at home to tap the estimated 3% of the entire worlds supply isn't going to do anything to help us out NOW.

Great, so I might just see a $0.13 drop in gas prices in eight years if we start exploring and drilling right now, woohoo, sign me up. If I am lucky we actually will destroy the shoreline and all of the tax money it brings in and I won't have to deal with the annoying tourists or lack of state income tax.


Hmmm, I wonder how much fuel the military consuming right now? I know those hybrid tanks, jets and ships are rather fuel efficient so they can't even possibly be contributing to the rising fuel prices. It must be Slick Willy and the Democratic Congress bending us over at the pump, eh? You want to be free, or you want cheap gas?

This is political BS. We don't need anymore of that. We got our fill of that when they decided to stimulate the potion of your brain that forgets being screwed over with a few paltry dollars instead of using the SPR to avoid the tipping point we finally reached. Enjoy $4 gas, because now they know that is what you will pay before crying.

[Anoriginal]

He said you have green teeth.

I've never seen your teeth, but I doubt they're green.










Yeah, I'm staying out of this one. 

[JackL]

He said you have green teeth.

I've never seen your teeth, but I doubt they're green.










Yeah, I'm staying out of this one. 

If everyone thought like you the thread would never get locked.

[Anoriginal]

You mean the way I think about his green teeth?

[GrizzlyGator]

What you all are forgetting is it costs $2 to produce a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia. Drilling here at home to tap the estimated 3% of the entire worlds supply isn't going to do anything to help us out NOW.

Great, so I might just see a $0.13 drop in gas prices in eight years if we start exploring and drilling right now, woohoo, sign me up. If I am lucky we actually will destroy the shoreline and all of the tax money it brings in and I won't have to deal with the annoying tourists or lack of state income tax.

This is political BS. We don't need anymore of that. We got our fill of that when they decided to stimulate the potion of your brain that forgets being screwed over with a few paltry dollars instead of using the SPR to avoid the tipping point we finally reached. Enjoy $4 gas, because now they know that is what you will pay before crying.

I don't car what color you vote for red or blue JackL is all over it on this one...lets suppose we do start pumping oil out left and right and we knock the middle east totally out of the picture...i would give it 5 years at the most before our government would find a way to tax the sh@t out of it and the oil companies would start selling the sh@t out of it back over seas why because they would sell it for more than we would be willing to pay and some one (China) would pay out the nose for it....I'm in the lumber business I have watched our lumber prices soar here in the U.S. for more than we could buy it shipped in from overseas and the quality was hands down 100% better from abroad...it didn't used to be that way...what happened....the Chinese park their big transport ships off the coast of Oregon and washington and pay more for un-milled logs than we lumber suppliers pay for a finished milled product..you can't blame the mills they are in it for the money.....just like our wonderful oil companies will be doing when the great oil rigs off the coast and up in anwar start (if ever) pumping that black gold!       

[trx#9]

He said you have green teeth.

I've never seen your teeth, but I doubt they're green.










Yeah, I'm staying out of this one. 

When ever he gets proved wrong he most result to insults and derogatory remarks.
I think he must me insecure of his man hood. Sorry I can't relate with on that.
How did he know my teeth are green?

[yunt2ride]

China, did someone say China, be sure to watch it all.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

[trx#9]

China, did someone say China, be sure to watch it all.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

He reminds me of another smart man (Ron Paul).

[Anoriginal]

He said you have green teeth.

I've never seen your teeth, but I doubt they're green.










Yeah, I'm staying out of this one. 

When ever he gets proved wrong he most result to insults and derogatory remarks.
I think he must me insecure of his man hood. Sorry I can't relate with on that.
How did he know my teeth are green?

I promise, I didn't tell him a thing about your teeth. 

[trx#9]

Thanks Big A''.

Ok Diggin, you said prove the Saudi's finance 9/11 this is rather easy. Only about 10 thousand websites that know the truth. Read what this has to say about your b-loved president and his friends.
http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm

[JackL]

You mean the way I think about his green teeth?

Yup, I'm betting they are more of a brown.

[FishaHallic]

What you all are forgetting is it costs $2 to produce a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia. Drilling here at home to tap the estimated 3% of the entire worlds supply isn't going to do anything to help us out NOW.

Great, so I might just see a $0.13 drop in gas prices in eight years if we start exploring and drilling right now, woohoo, sign me up. If I am lucky we actually will destroy the shoreline and all of the tax money it brings in and I won't have to deal with the annoying tourists or lack of state income tax.


Hmmm, I wonder how much fuel the military consuming right now? I know those hybrid tanks, jets and ships are rather fuel efficient so they can't even possibly be contributing to the rising fuel prices. It must be Slick Willy and the Democratic Congress bending us over at the pump, eh? You want to be free, or you want cheap gas?

This is political BS. We don't need anymore of that. We got our fill of that when they decided to stimulate the potion of your brain that forgets being screwed over with a few paltry dollars instead of using the SPR to avoid the tipping point we finally reached. Enjoy $4 gas, because now they know that is what you will pay before crying.


I just saw something last night that said the U.S. military is going to convert all of there equipment to run on a liquid fuel made from coal so that our supply of fuel for the military will not be up to the whims of the open market.  That is a good start anyway.

[digginfool]

He said you have green teeth.

I've never seen your teeth, but I doubt they're green.










Yeah, I'm staying out of this one. 

You boys just don't remember the '90s, do you?  In case you don't remember, Butthead had green teeth and braces and was usually dripping snot from his nose.  Like I said before, if I'm Beavis, then you must be Butthead.



 


Of course, when I think of TRX, this is what I really see...





 

 

 


I guess you might be right, JackL.  With his head in there, his teeth probably are brown!!!

You mean the way I think about his green teeth?

Yup, I'm betting they are more of a brown.

[trx#9]

Thanks Big A''.

Ok Diggin, you said prove the Saudi's finance 9/11 this is rather easy. Only about 10 thousand websites that know the truth. Read what this has to say about your b-loved president and his friends.
http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm

It sucks getting proven wrong!

[trx#9]

Of course, when I think of TRX, this is what I really see...



[/quote]Thats were right wingers get there crappy idea's from.

[digginfool]

Thanks Big A''.

Ok Diggin, you said prove the Saudi's finance 9/11 this is rather easy. Only about 10 thousand websites that know the truth. Read what this has to say about your b-loved president and his friends.
http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm

It sucks getting proven wrong!

Oh, puh-leeeze!  I wasn't even going to give you the benefit of a response on that tripe.

[digginfool]

Of course, when I think of TRX, this is what I really see...



Thats were right wingers get there crappy idea's from.

You're a right-winger?  Could've fooled me, bean pole.

[trx#9]

Thanks Big A''.

Ok Diggin, you said prove the Saudi's finance 9/11 this is rather easy. Only about 10 thousand websites that know the truth. Read what this has to say about your b-loved president and his friends.
http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm

It sucks getting proven wrong!

Oh, puh-leeeze!  I wasn't even going to give you the benefit of a response on that tripe.

Because you can't.

[Wannagofaster]

Drill, Drill, Drill: My Interview with Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett
Posted By:Larry Kudlow
Topics:Your Money Your Vote | Politics & Government | Stock Market
Sectors:Oil and Gas
Companies:Anadarko Petroleum Corp

What follows below is an unofficial transcript of my interview last night with James Hackett. Mr. Hackett is the president & CEO of Anadarko Petroleum
ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP
APC

72.53  -3.13  -4.14%
NYSE
Quote  |  Chart  |  News  |  Profile
[APC  72.53    -3.13  (-4.14%)   ]. He also happens to be an incredibly bright man whose thoughts and ideas on energy are right on the money.

Kudlow: Alright, drill, drill, drill. So here to talk about the whole energy situation is James Hackett, president and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum. Mr. Hackett, welcome. Let me just ask you, drilling, this big debate, you know all about it. Ending the moratorium. Decontrolling. Allowing us to produce more supply. First of all, let me get your quick take. How long would it take to bring some oil online if we go to the Outer Continental Shelf?

Hackett: Generally five to seven years from the initial leasing until you actually have production. And we’ve proven that in 8100 feet of water, in a platform that we operate in the eastern Gulf of Mexico right now.

Kudlow: So why are these senators – and I’m not even gonna even say which political party they’re from, because I would never politicize an issue – why are these senators saying it would take five to ten years and the price impact wouldn’t be felt until 2030? In fact, listen for one second, it’s a non-senator, I’ve got some sound from former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Hang on a second. Here he comes.

[Bill Richardson video clip courtesy of CBS/"Face the Nation": “I was Energy Secretary, and I can tell you that every bipartisan administration has opposed offshore drilling for pristine reasons, the ecosystem. But also, the fact that you’re not going to get any of this oil out offshore for the next ten years, and prices won’t go down till the year 2030 according to the Energy Information Agency which is part of the Department of Energy."]

Kudlow: Mr. Hackett, you heard him. Ten years to get it out and then nothing until 2030 on prices. What’s he talking about?

Hackett: Well, I think that it’s one man’s view. We happen to be operators in the Gulf of Mexico. I don’t think Secretary Richardson actually did operate a well in the deep offshore areas. As I mentioned, we’ve got a world class project that is the deepest producing well in the history of the world. It’s providing clean, natural gas to America, about 1.5 percent of all of our gas supply. Everyday it’s being provided from a football field and a half sized environmental footprint, a two-hour flight away from the shoreline. So it’s not in any visual contact with any human being. These platforms have gone through 200-year hurricanes, back in 2005, without any environmental consequences. It’s a bit of a fiction hoisted on us by people who don’t know better.

Kudlow: Alright, I hear you. People who don’t know better. What’s the price impact and how much is out there? I mean, there’s a lot of estimates. What is it, 86 billion barrels in theory, maybe 20 billion barrels are going to be available and provable. What’s your take on the volume that you could put on the market? And when would the price adjust?

Hackett: Well I think that the price would adjust actually as soon as you started drilling it. There’s a psychology with regard to speculative elements in any commodity market, whether it’s grains, or metals, or oil and gas. If the world really felt that there were plenty of places to go look for oil and gas, the markets would start trading as if that were a reality. Today it’s quite the opposite reality, especially with the geopolitical elements overlaying that. So, every time we say to the world, ‘We want energy security, but we want you to produce it, and we’re not going to do anything,’ the elements in the trading community say, ‘well that means that access is getting tougher.’

If you want the things that everybody says we want, we should go and open up our own shores to drill. We can do it environmentally well. We’ve got the proven technology. And we don’t know how much is left out there. Every time we go and find new resources, we find there are more than we thought there were. You could have gone back fifty years, and said that there were less resources, now there are more because we actually went and did good science, produced it responsibly, and have found new horizons in deeper and deeper areas of the horizon to be able to test and bring out.

Kudlow: What about this other argument that is sort of the political talking points of one of the two major parties, although nobody is really totally clean on analyzing this. The leases. I heard a U.S. senator on one of the talk shows yesterday say well, ‘there’s 41 million acres worth of leases out there, but they’re only using 10 million.’ What’s that all about? What is your response to that argument?

Hackett: Well one, it shows a very poor understanding of how the oil and gas business actually works. It’s a bit like the real estate development arena. If you were developing a real estate development, you wouldn’t just do it on one acre, you wouldn’t just build one house. To make it economic you’d actually buy, let’s call it fifty acres and you’d build a housing development. In our case, we don’t just take just one lease to get a well drilled. We actually take several leases if we’re lucky enough to get them. It’s all competitively bid. The federal government collects billions of dollars from this stuff. It’s as if they don’t get anything if you listen to the soundbites. We also pay annual rentals.

So we’re putting together an economically developable area, because remember, we’re drilling miles into the ocean sometimes, miles into the ground, without knowing there’s anything there. So to assume it’s on that one acre that you actually bought is crazy. And so what we’ll do is we’ll actually get ten or fifteen leases, and then we’ll drill, and then we’ll figure out if it’s there or if it’s on the next lease next door. And these things take time. You have to permit them. You have to shoot seismic to be able to do the right science, image it below salt. And then you go and drill it, if you’re lucky enough to get a permit, after you’ve done all your environmental studies.

But they’re talking about offshore. You go onshore, there’s places where we wait on permits for two months to two years. And even though it’s leased, it can’t actually physically be drilled. And that’s what people don’t really understand. With the environmental restrictions and environmental lawsuits, there are lots of places where we hold leases, [but] we’re not allowed to drill because the federal government that leased it to us actually won’t give us the permits.

Kudlow: Yup. Alright before we break, let me just ask you a couple others. What would cap-and-trade do to drilling?

Hackett: Cap-and-trade would probably hurt drilling. Because there’s a lot of risk that it would not actually be implemented properly. And the unintended consequences of a very complex system, that’s administered by governmental agencies, would have to be one that I would predict would actually make supply harder to get to consumers which I think is a mistake.

Kudlow: What about those who are saying now the energy business in general is much too profitable, it’s time to charge a windfall profits tax and use the proceeds of that tax for consumers so they can buy more gasoline at the pump? What’s your response to that one?

Hackett: Well first of all, I hope any American that is as old as I am, and was around in the ‘70s, realized that failed once. We actually started importing about 13 percent more oil, after we slapped a windfall profits tax on it. That money is much better spent within the private enterprise sector that’s good at finding new supplies. You’re actually discouraging supplies from being developed. A much healthier tax is actually opening up access, where you actually generate tax revenues for the government from the additional drilling. You get supplies, plus you get additional taxes. And that’s where we ought to be headed. It’s good for consumers.

Kudlow: Do you have a problem giving some of those royalties to the states if they let you drill off their shores?

Hackett: We’ve been huge supporters of that because it provides them an incentive to provide education, coastal restoration or any kind of fish and wildlife type of activity. We’ve been very active as part of our association, we’re trying to get that done.

Kudlow: What about the shale story? President Bush talked about shale in his speech the other day. Green River Formation, they’re talking about maybe 800 billion in recoverable barrels equivalent. Some people like the Rand Corporation have said close to 2 trillion. And also the Bakken Shale formation, which is to the north of that. Are you doing any shale? It’s not drilling, I guess it’s extraction. Are you in that business? Is that a promising business?

Hackett: Well we have huge amounts of shale exposure if you will, because of our old land grant with the Union Pacific Railroad. But I think it is a long-dated technology. We tried it in the 70s. We will try it again ultimately if oil stays high. I think there are other answers we should be searching for as well. But I think everything is up for consideration in an environment where we ought to be looking for more supplies and more alternative fuels. Just remembering that we’ve got a bridge we’ve got to make until we get to that ideal future of alternative energy. And recognizing that gasoline doesn’t come from wind power. Gasoline doesn’t come from solar firms. Gasoline comes from sometimes, really bad alternatives like corn-based ethanol. And we’ve got to be real careful not to prescribe political solutions, as opposed to funding research and letting science lead us to the right answers.

Kudlow: …What do you say to the peak oil crowd? You don’t sound like you believe in peak oil.

Hackett: I think that the peak oil is determined by price. And I think that it is also determined by what you allow to be alternative forms of energy. I think there are places in the world where peak oil has not occurred. I do think that oil will not be able to grow to the sky in terms of supply, forever and ever. I think it’s harder to get. It’s getting more expensive to get. I think that we need to continue to develop a broad based fuel sourcing, including nuclear energy. But prices are having some effect. It’s both impacting demand, which we all need to conserve a lot more than we do. We’ve become a very lazy country since the late 70s. Nobody talks about conservation. They’re talking about taxing the oil industry, instead of talking about turning off your air-conditioners, or driving smaller cars, which is what we really need to do. It has that immediate impact.

Kudlow: Well isn’t the high price a blessing? Doesn’t the high price cause conservation? And doesn’t the high price cause production, if it were deregulated?

Hackett: Absolutely. It’s Economics 101. We don’t have to have the government necessarily solve this for us. But it’s not to say that anybody likes [higher] prices. Because it’s not necessarily good for companies like us. It’s not good for demand. But it is having the intended effect. People are riding in buses. They’re taking mass transit. And they’re [creating a smaller] environmental footprint by virtue of doing that. We are finding new supplies in more and more remote parts of the world where you can’t do that at $30 oil.

Kudlow: Alright, I got to take a commercial break Mr. Hackett. You’re gonna stay with us. I really appreciate your time very much, sir. Our distinguished panel is going to join us to drill down – pardon the phrase – on many of these issues we’ve discussed. By the way, Mr. Hackett is chairman of the board of directors of the Dallas Federal Reserve. So we might even go in that direction too. We’re for keeping America on the right track. You heard Mr. Hackett, we have a lot of drilling, profitably, to do. We can get it done. This is America. America first. Let us stay away from Saudi Arabia. We can do it right here. "Kudlow and Company" straight ahead.

[GrizzlyGator]

whew!!! Glad i wuz at work so I had time to read that one!!!! ha ha

[trx#9]

I don't recommend getting info from an oil CEO. I don't think they would want a barrel of oil going for 50 dollars on the market.
They way to lower gas prices is to produce cars that don't run on gas. That would scare big oil and they would drop the price.