Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

The Fiscal Cliff

Posted: 1/2/2013 7:47 PM

The Fiscal Cliff 


Anyone else hate the fiscal cliff deal?

Basically the Bush tax cuts expired on Jan 1.  So they passed a slightly modified version, withhigher tax rates on the top fraction of a percent.  So we can now call them the Obama tax cuts. 

The Obama tax cuts will add $3.6T to the national debt over the next decade.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/2/2013 8:17 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 


Add to that my social security taxes are going up, so call it what you like, it's a tax increase on the middle class. I see the usual do nothing Senate & House cut nothing so what did they really do? They increased revenues, increased spending and the deficit, and did nothing to address the real problems.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/2/2013 8:23 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/2/2013 11:25 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 


spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/3/2013 2:12 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.

Last edited 1/3/2013 2:27 PM by VAMetsFan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/3/2013 2:32 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.
http://www.slate.com/articles/..._20_years_.html

And it's good for the environment.  The Fracking revolution has really helped reduced CO2 emmissions.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/3/2013 5:31 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.

What "hole" are you talking about?  We import lots of oil to this country, and export "oil products," we are not and cannot yet be oil independent.  We simply don't produce enough, but we produce more and more each year, and will become a net exporter of oil by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/energy-independence-in-america-would-n ot-be-fully-independent.html?_r=0

Oil production is up huge since Obama has taken office.  I don't know if that's driven by policy or by innovation in the field, but either way the numbers are stark.  Oil production was down every single year since 1991, until 2009, and has been up every year since...

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean when you say they need to be more open minded about oil/drilling.

Last edited 1/3/2013 5:35 PM by minkusdominkus

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/3/2013 5:34 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.
http://www.slate.com/articles/..._20_years_.html

And it's good for the environment.  The Fracking revolution has really helped reduced CO2 emmissions.
If you have a Big Mac for lunch every day, and then for New Year's you switch to a ham and cheese sandwich, you wouldn't call that ham and cheese healthy.  Yes, you lowered your caloric intake, but it still ain't healthy.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/3/2013 9:05 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.

What "hole" are you talking about?  We import lots of oil to this country, and export "oil products," we are not and cannot yet be oil independent.  We simply don't produce enough, but we produce more and more each year, and will become a net exporter of oil by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/energy-independence-in-america-would-n ot-be-fully-independent.html?_r=0

Oil production is up huge since Obama has taken office.  I don't know if that's driven by policy or by innovation in the field, but either way the numbers are stark.  Oil production was down every single year since 1991, until 2009, and has been up every year since...

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean when you say they need to be more open minded about oil/drilling.


The hole is imported oil.  Or do dems actually believe that countries grow rich by not producing things.  There is a ton of money to be made by controlling the entire production process, not just the refineries.  By the way, all of the increase in oil production has been on private land.  It is actually down on federal land.  Are you now implying that this administration is a friend of oil, or gas, or coal for that matter?  You create jobs by providing something that people are willing to actually pay for.  There is no shortage of demand for oil and  gas.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.

Last edited 1/3/2013 9:06 PM by VAMetsFan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/3/2013 9:07 PM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.
http://www.slate.com/articles/..._20_years_.html

And it's good for the environment.  The Fracking revolution has really helped reduced CO2 emmissions.
If you have a Big Mac for lunch every day, and then for New Year's you switch to a ham and cheese sandwich, you wouldn't call that ham and cheese healthy.  Yes, you lowered your caloric intake, but it still ain't healthy.
More accurrrately, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Either that or you must believe that energy price must "necessarily" rise.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/4/2013 8:40 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.
http://www.slate.com/articles/..._20_years_.html

And it's good for the environment.  The Fracking revolution has really helped reduced CO2 emmissions.
If you have a Big Mac for lunch every day, and then for New Year's you switch to a ham and cheese sandwich, you wouldn't call that ham and cheese healthy.  Yes, you lowered your caloric intake, but it still ain't healthy.
More accurrrately, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Either that or you must believe that energy price must "necessarily" rise.
I have no problem with exporting natural gas, of course.  But it's not good for the environment, it's just better than most of our other options.

Obviously burning natural gas is preferred over coal or petroleum.  I love fracking!!!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/4/2013 8:48 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.

What "hole" are you talking about?  We import lots of oil to this country, and export "oil products," we are not and cannot yet be oil independent.  We simply don't produce enough, but we produce more and more each year, and will become a net exporter of oil by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/energy-independence-in-america-would-n ot-be-fully-independent.html?_r=0

Oil production is up huge since Obama has taken office.  I don't know if that's driven by policy or by innovation in the field, but either way the numbers are stark.  Oil production was down every single year since 1991, until 2009, and has been up every year since...

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean when you say they need to be more open minded about oil/drilling.


The hole is imported oil.  Or do dems actually believe that countries grow rich by not producing things.  There is a ton of money to be made by controlling the entire production process, not just the refineries.  By the way, all of the increase in oil production has been on private land.  It is actually down on federal land.  Are you now implying that this administration is a friend of oil, or gas, or coal for that matter?  You create jobs by providing something that people are willing to actually pay for.  There is no shortage of demand for oil and  gas.
But oil production is way up, and projected to continue to rise.  We export more oil now than any year since 97, and by the end of 2013, we'll be producing 10% more than we are right now. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/12/us-oi l-production-record-rise-in-2012/

Where's the problem?

Also, oil production on federal land is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.  It has gone up MORE on privately owned land, but it's still up on federal land.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check- oil-gas/index.html
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/4/2013 9:10 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.

What "hole" are you talking about?  We import lots of oil to this country, and export "oil products," we are not and cannot yet be oil independent.  We simply don't produce enough, but we produce more and more each year, and will become a net exporter of oil by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/energy-independence-in-america-would-n ot-be-fully-independent.html?_r=0

Oil production is up huge since Obama has taken office.  I don't know if that's driven by policy or by innovation in the field, but either way the numbers are stark.  Oil production was down every single year since 1991, until 2009, and has been up every year since...

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean when you say they need to be more open minded about oil/drilling.


The hole is imported oil.  Or do dems actually believe that countries grow rich by not producing things.  There is a ton of money to be made by controlling the entire production process, not just the refineries.  By the way, all of the increase in oil production has been on private land.  It is actually down on federal land.  Are you now implying that this administration is a friend of oil, or gas, or coal for that matter?  You create jobs by providing something that people are willing to actually pay for.  There is no shortage of demand for oil and  gas.
But oil production is way up, and projected to continue to rise.  We export more oil now than any year since 97, and by the end of 2013, we'll be producing 10% more than we are right now. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/12/us-oi l-production-record-rise-in-2012/

Where's the problem?

Also, oil production on federal land is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.  It has gone up MORE on privately owned land, but it's still up on federal land.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check- oil-gas/index.html
We export more oil products, not oil.  Big Difference.  We import oil to refine it into gasoline, kerosine, diesel, plastics, fertilizer and probably 100 other things I haven't thought of yet.    And I'll believe that this administrationis friendly to oil, when we see Richard Windsor's email.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/4/2013 9:33 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.
http://www.slate.com/articles/..._20_years_.html

And it's good for the environment.  The Fracking revolution has really helped reduced CO2 emmissions.
If you have a Big Mac for lunch every day, and then for New Year's you switch to a ham and cheese sandwich, you wouldn't call that ham and cheese healthy.  Yes, you lowered your caloric intake, but it still ain't healthy.
More accurrrately, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Either that or you must believe that energy price must "necessarily" rise.
I have no problem with exporting natural gas, of course.  But it's not good for the environment, it's just better than most of our other options.

Obviously burning natural gas is preferred over coal or petroleum.  I love fracking!!!
I Cuomo got a report this morning saying that it is safe for NY state.  The economic future of upstate NY just got better if true, but the devil is always in the details. 

I know I look like an absolute shill for oil, but what we have is a mancession more than anything else.  Tne kinds of jobs that less than well educated men do in manufacturing, mining, and construction have gone away for a myriad of reasons.  Production in the oil and gas industry fits the description of the types of jobs these young men can do.  More than that, this production can be used to help our balance of trade/payments, whichever number you prefer to look at.  The angst that our middle class feels can be seen in a number-our trade deficit.  It represents money leaving the country, circulating somewhere else.  Recession aside, that's what driving the downfall of the Middle class.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/4/2013 10:37 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.

What "hole" are you talking about?  We import lots of oil to this country, and export "oil products," we are not and cannot yet be oil independent.  We simply don't produce enough, but we produce more and more each year, and will become a net exporter of oil by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/energy-independence-in-america-would-n ot-be-fully-independent.html?_r=0

Oil production is up huge since Obama has taken office.  I don't know if that's driven by policy or by innovation in the field, but either way the numbers are stark.  Oil production was down every single year since 1991, until 2009, and has been up every year since...

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean when you say they need to be more open minded about oil/drilling.


The hole is imported oil.  Or do dems actually believe that countries grow rich by not producing things.  There is a ton of money to be made by controlling the entire production process, not just the refineries.  By the way, all of the increase in oil production has been on private land.  It is actually down on federal land.  Are you now implying that this administration is a friend of oil, or gas, or coal for that matter?  You create jobs by providing something that people are willing to actually pay for.  There is no shortage of demand for oil and  gas.
But oil production is way up, and projected to continue to rise.  We export more oil now than any year since 97, and by the end of 2013, we'll be producing 10% more than we are right now. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/12/us-oi l-production-record-rise-in-2012/

Where's the problem?

Also, oil production on federal land is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.  It has gone up MORE on privately owned land, but it's still up on federal land.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check- oil-gas/index.html
We export more oil products, not oil.  Big Difference.  We import oil to refine it into gasoline, kerosine, diesel, plastics, fertilizer and probably 100 other things I haven't thought of yet.    And I'll believe that this administrationis friendly to oil, when we see Richard Windsor's email.
Oops, I said export I meant produce.  My mistake.  The entire context of the post still stands.  Look at the links.  Oil production in this country is up HUGE.  What's the problem?

Last edited 1/4/2013 10:39 AM by minkusdominkus

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/4/2013 10:50 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: spending cuts will be fine if they're tied to a jobs bill.  I don't see how spending cuts w/o economic expansion will lead to anything but more pain.
The jobs bill should be a much more open minded approach by this administration towards oil and mining.  We import about 700 billion in oil every year (yet still run a small surplus on oil products).  Simply closing that hole would add 700 billion to GDP that even the most incompetent of governments could capture 15% of in taxes.  And we would get it every year.  Thats like 80% of the stimulus every year for the economy.

Or you could simply allow for the export of LNG.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...nd-economy.html.

What "hole" are you talking about?  We import lots of oil to this country, and export "oil products," we are not and cannot yet be oil independent.  We simply don't produce enough, but we produce more and more each year, and will become a net exporter of oil by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy- environment/energy-independence-in-america-would-n ot-be-fully-independent.html?_r=0

Oil production is up huge since Obama has taken office.  I don't know if that's driven by policy or by innovation in the field, but either way the numbers are stark.  Oil production was down every single year since 1991, until 2009, and has been up every year since...

I guess I'm just not sure what you mean when you say they need to be more open minded about oil/drilling.


The hole is imported oil.  Or do dems actually believe that countries grow rich by not producing things.  There is a ton of money to be made by controlling the entire production process, not just the refineries.  By the way, all of the increase in oil production has been on private land.  It is actually down on federal land.  Are you now implying that this administration is a friend of oil, or gas, or coal for that matter?  You create jobs by providing something that people are willing to actually pay for.  There is no shortage of demand for oil and  gas.
But oil production is way up, and projected to continue to rise.  We export more oil now than any year since 97, and by the end of 2013, we'll be producing 10% more than we are right now. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/12/us-oi l-production-record-rise-in-2012/

Where's the problem?

Also, oil production on federal land is higher under Obama than it was under Bush.  It has gone up MORE on privately owned land, but it's still up on federal land.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check- oil-gas/index.html
We export more oil products, not oil.  Big Difference.  We import oil to refine it into gasoline, kerosine, diesel, plastics, fertilizer and probably 100 other things I haven't thought of yet.    And I'll believe that this administrationis friendly to oil, when we see Richard Windsor's email.
Oops, I said export I meant produce.  My mistake.  The entire context of the post still stands.  Look at the links.  Oil production in this country is up HUGE.  What's the problem?
It could be much more-say if permits in the gulf were accelerated.  Or more drilling off the coast of California would be permitted.  (Drilling in the mid-atlantic is a pipe dream unless technology is massively improved).  Or what about the coast of Florida.  Cuba is letting the Chinese drill in that same oil field, why shouldn't we.  I would also say that any increase in oil production is in spite of this administrations policies.  This administration massively over reacted to an admittedly bad event.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/4/2013 10:57 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote: 
It could be much more-say if permits in the gulf were accelerated.  Or more drilling off the coast of California would be permitted.  (Drilling in the mid-atlantic is a pipe dream unless technology is massively improved).  Or what about the coast of Florida.  Cuba is letting the Chinese drill in that same oil field, why shouldn't we.  I would also say that any increase in oil production is in spite of this administrations policies.  This administration massively over reacted to an admittedly bad event.
Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands." From the CNN link...

And I disagree with your last sentence as well.  We cannot afford another catastrophe like that one.  Let's drill where we can drill safely.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/4/2013 11:04 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote: 
It could be much more-say if permits in the gulf were accelerated.  Or more drilling off the coast of California would be permitted.  (Drilling in the mid-atlantic is a pipe dream unless technology is massively improved).  Or what about the coast of Florida.  Cuba is letting the Chinese drill in that same oil field, why shouldn't we.  I would also say that any increase in oil production is in spite of this administrations policies.  This administration massively over reacted to an admittedly bad event.
Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands." From the CNN link...

And I disagree with your last sentence as well.  We cannot afford another catastrophe like that one.  Let's drill where we can drill safely.
Off the coast of Florida, it doesn't matter who does the drilling if there is an oil spill.  As far as the Gulf goes, prosecute where laws were broken, attack corruption, but for god sake don't shut down production for those who did nothing wrong. 

And like I said earlier, I will trust that the energy sector will get a fair shake in this country when Richard Windsor's(Lisa Jackson) emails are made public.  But alas we will never know as Mrs Lisa "Richard Windsor" Jackson is leaving the administration.  Transparency and all.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/4/2013 11:07 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote: 
It could be much more-say if permits in the gulf were accelerated.  Or more drilling off the coast of California would be permitted.  (Drilling in the mid-atlantic is a pipe dream unless technology is massively improved).  Or what about the coast of Florida.  Cuba is letting the Chinese drill in that same oil field, why shouldn't we.  I would also say that any increase in oil production is in spite of this administrations policies.  This administration massively over reacted to an admittedly bad event.
Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands." From the CNN link...

And I disagree with your last sentence as well.  We cannot afford another catastrophe like that one.  Let's drill where we can drill safely.
SInce the Republican party is often accused of being in the pockets of big oil, I doublt it was their policies that lead to a decrease in oil production.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/4/2013 11:12 AM

Re: The Fiscal Cliff 



VAMetsFan wrote:
minkusdominkus wrote:
VAMetsFan wrote: 
It could be much more-say if permits in the gulf were accelerated.  Or more drilling off the coast of California would be permitted.  (Drilling in the mid-atlantic is a pipe dream unless technology is massively improved).  Or what about the coast of Florida.  Cuba is letting the Chinese drill in that same oil field, why shouldn't we.  I would also say that any increase in oil production is in spite of this administrations policies.  This administration massively over reacted to an admittedly bad event.
Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands." From the CNN link...

And I disagree with your last sentence as well.  We cannot afford another catastrophe like that one.  Let's drill where we can drill safely.
SInce the Republican party is often accused of being in the pockets of big oil, I doublt it was their policies that lead to a decrease in oil production.
There is no decrease in oil production.  Oil production is up in each of the last 4 years.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >