Gulp...oil.

[woodenstickers]

Okay, hot topic but important. I promise to keep it clean this time.

First I would really like to ask anyone who is willing to explain their position on drilling/not drilling to do so. Inject party politics into it if you must, politics are not a small part of it, but I am really interested in numbers and how they will translate to you and me. That is something I don't have a firm grasp on, and I admit much of my theories are anecdotally and emotional.

One thing I want to point out is that oil has continued to drop in price even as the discussion of offshore drilling was flaked on by our benevolent public servants. To me this sort of counters the claim that the first drop in price was due to the rumors of offshore drilling opening up. I think with the complex and artificial bubble we are experiencing in oil futures the short term price fluctuations are not really attributable to just one or two things, and may not really indicate much of anything.

Now as to why I am not for opening our coasts to offshore drilling-- not without a lot more info. I already stated that I don't trust the conflict of interest in the cabinet today, as well as the vast amounts of $ that goes into lobbies for all positions on both sides of the aisle. To me politicians are owned by many interests, and oil is one of the big ones, so I am willing to dismiss nearly anything they say on the subject out of hand until I see real proof. Bush has said that drilling is more a psychological solution rather than an economic one, and that I am willing to believe because I have yet to hear how it is more than that.

I have heard that the amount of oil usage the US decreased recently, the first time in ages, was immediately absorbed by Asian countries and that their usage is projected to grow fast. So fast that by the time the proposed offshore wells are up and producing--even at the most optimistic production rates--China and India will easily suck up that amount and more off the world market.

To me this means two important things. One, the global price per barrel will continue to rise and we will not benefit from any real price relief,. After all, why would any for profit company sell its goods to us for cheaper than it can command on the world market? Sure some countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia get their gas for pennies, but those are kingdoms and socialist states, not capitalist countries with private oil companies.

The second is that if we really want to make an impact on how much money our "friends" in the middle east can make from their resources it is going to take more than just the US decreasing our dependence on them. They will still have Asia to take up the slack and then some meaning they will still be gaining riches and power. Countering this can only be achieved if we come up with a real, non oil-based solution to energy that can not only help us here but get other big industrial nations off the teat of opec as well.

Environmental concerns are not just big oil spills. That is an easy thing for environmentalist to scream and for pro oil concerns to refute. It is very unlikely to have a major oil spill these days, though not impossible, and the threat goes up the longer we continue to use oil as our primary fuel source. There was a spill in the SF bay recently. But there will be many small spills, a lot more machinery and ships active in the waters and all of the incidental pollution humans cause wherever we congregate. That, and more importantly the fact that the longer we stay on course with our current program of oil consumption, the more fossil fuels burned, the more carbon we create. This can be poo-pooed, but as anecdotally evidence it took a long time and a huge price increase before we stopped using as much oil as we have been. I won't be surprised if usage goes back up a little now that prices have dropped a little. It is just the way we roll in this country--myself included.


I said a lot here, I hope to start a real conversation about this without too much invested beyond a learning opportunity. Much of this is different things I have heard glued together with my own logic--I am not an economist and I am not repeating this theory, it is just my layman and partly informed ideas on the subject, so if I am misguided or wrong let me know. I really would appreciate it.

Eli

[Old Grunter]

I really think there needs to be drilling (careful) of wells both for oil and natural gas and on USA land and nearby waters. Why should North America rely on getting energy from sources way far away? It's just stupid. With that said we really must look at other sources of energy. I could heat my home all winter if I had a good way to store solar heat from the summer and do so in a cost effective manor. Ocean waves could be used to generate electric power. The problem is that people aren't willing to do the right thing. It's all about the bog hogs making every cent they can and dirty people in control. The real people of the USA don't run it.

Rant off

[cpw]

Eli,

Thanks for starting the thread. Let's hope we can all follow your rules. When Service Guy did the same thing for the presidential race, it resulted in a really interesting and remarkably civil thread.

Anyway, my position basically boils down to free market economics. I don't trust the government; or even myself to make the best decision. The market on the other hand really includes all of our collective intelligence. Unfortunately, it never gets it truly right, but it bounces around the real answer. I think oil at this point should cost more than the $20-40/bbl that we would like it to based on demand; but that when it went to $140 there wasn't necessarily any good fundamental reason for it; sort of a bit of irrational exuberance if you will. Right now we are seeing some more sense get back into the market.

Regarding existing conventional oil and drilling, I think we should drill more; because companies think they can make a profit it at. If they can, then it makes sense to drill. However, the leases must be competitively awarded and include good royalty payments to the government. How do you make sure they are competitively priced, I think we should do an auction like we do with government debt.

As far as conservation, I think that will naturally happen with the increase in oil prices. Even if gas isn't at $4.50 a gallon anymore, $4/gallon is a significant difference from the $1.25/gallon when I started driving 10 years ago. I think that behavior will change. We also need to use our bully pulpit against countries that subsidize fuel. It isn't anyone who sells oils fault that they can get more money for it, so I don't think they should be the target. The target should be governments in Asia and elsewhere, which subsidize the cost of diesel fuel; thus giving their own people no incentive to conserve.

I also think the market will help bring alternative technologies to market. Venezuela probably has more oil than Saudi Arabia right now, nothing fundamental has changed except the price. Heavy oil which was previously not economically viable is now viable, because the increased refining cost is made up for in the higher price per barrel. Oil sands in Canada are also now viable. At some point we'll figure out how to get the oil out of shale in the American west.

There are also plenty of technologies that we have right now that should take off. Nuclear power hasn't been expanded in decades; I think there are a lot of us "mad as hell" and don't want to take it anymore. Hopefully, our congress critters will listen for a change and we'll get some new plants and expand existing ones. Wind farms and solar power in the past have been too expensive to make sense; if natural gas stays expensive that won't be true anymore.

If we remove uneccessary restraints and distortions from the market, then it can sort things out. We've found ways around our energy problems in the past; and I am optomistic that we can do it again.

Ironically, I think that once we learn how to do things more efficiently we'll actually end up using more energy; because we'll get more utility from them [an electric light bulb is a heck of a lot more efficient than a gas lantern, which in turn is much better than whale oil; and with each generation we used more and more lamps]. There is an interesting book that makes this point. I got from the library a few years after seeing an interview with the author on the Daily Show:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OVsccHaTpooC&dq=the+bottomless+well&pg=PP1&ots=nHGzSmwXBg&sig=C-994SmqouFdV4iAbGrsfCo9ePs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Charles

[Frankiarmz]

I was against drilling for years because of the risk to the environment, now I have other objections. I cannot see the benefit to consumers even if discovered immediately without some guarantees from big oil that the price would drop. Unless the price dropped big oil would simply make greater profits and the consumer is no better off! I think if we put all our efforts into drilling it might stall alternatives to oil from being developed. Solar and wind alternatives may have their limits but if the incentives were in place to get more business and home owners to make the investment demand for oil fuels would decrease. If this energy bill ever gets passed and includes substantial incentives for hybrid cars, trucks and buses the demand will further decrease. So, in my opinion allow the exploration and drilling but get some agreements on pricing upfront. Don't be fooled into thinking we can satisfy our demand for energy with oil, start moving towards alterantives including nuclear. Maybe we could ask the French for their help with the nuclear energy, seems to work for them. Those who are old enough to remember the 70's know we lost sight of that little eye opener, we cannot let that happen again. I know I got off track a bit, but what about short term? Millions of Americans are in serious trouble and it will get much worse as Winter arrives. I know the price of crude dropped a bit but it's still twice what it was a years ago.

[woodenstickers]

Eli,

Thanks for starting the thread. Let's hope we can all follow your rules. When Service Guy did the same thing for the presidential race, it resulted in a really interesting and remarkably civil thread.

Anyway, my position basically boils down to free market economics. I don't trust the government; or even myself to make the best decision. The market on the other hand really includes all of our collective intelligence. Unfortunately, it never gets it truly right, but it bounces around the real answer. I think oil at this point should cost more than the $20-40/bbl that we would like it to based on demand; but that when it went to $140 there wasn't necessarily any good fundamental reason for it; sort of a bit of irrational exuberance if you will. Right now we are seeing some more sense get back into the market.

Regarding existing conventional oil and drilling, I think we should drill more; because companies think they can make a profit it at. If they can, then it makes sense to drill. However, the leases must be competitively awarded and include good royalty payments to the government. How do you make sure they are competitively priced, I think we should do an auction like we do with government debt.

As far as conservation, I think that will naturally happen with the increase in oil prices. Even if gas isn't at $4.50 a gallon anymore, $4/gallon is a significant difference from the $1.25/gallon when I started driving 10 years ago. I think that behavior will change. We also need to use our bully pulpit against countries that subsidize fuel. It isn't anyone who sells oils fault that they can get more money for it, so I don't think they should be the target. The target should be governments in Asia and elsewhere, which subsidize the cost of diesel fuel; thus giving their own people no incentive to conserve.

I also think the market will help bring alternative technologies to market. Venezuela probably has more oil than Saudi Arabia right now, nothing fundamental has changed except the price. Heavy oil which was previously not economically viable is now viable, because the increased refining cost is made up for in the higher price per barrel. Oil sands in Canada are also now viable. At some point we'll figure out how to get the oil out of shale in the American west.

There are also plenty of technologies that we have right now that should take off. Nuclear power hasn't been expanded in decades; I think there are a lot of us "mad as hell" and don't want to take it anymore. Hopefully, our congress critters will listen for a change and we'll get some new plants and expand existing ones. Wind farms and solar power in the past have been too expensive to make sense; if natural gas stays expensive that won't be true anymore.

If we remove uneccessary restraints and distortions from the market, then it can sort things out. We've found ways around our energy problems in the past; and I am optomistic that we can do it again.

Ironically, I think that once we learn how to do things more efficiently we'll actually end up using more energy; because we'll get more utility from them [an electric light bulb is a heck of a lot more efficient than a gas lantern, which in turn is much better than whale oil; and with each generation we used more and more lamps]. There is an interesting book that makes this point. I got from the library a few years after seeing an interview with the author on the Daily Show:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OVsccHaTpooC&dq=the+bottomless+well&pg=PP1&ots=nHGzSmwXBg&sig=C-994SmqouFdV4iAbGrsfCo9ePs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Charles

Thanks Charles!

I will have a lot of time to read soon with the new job (after training and before I get into school) so I will most definitely pick that book up from the library.

Nuclear power is another heavily emotionally based topic. I don't even know enough about it to have an opinion to share one way or the other. I know enough not to be too concerned with meltdowns and the like, but I do recall from my elementary school days and specifically Bill Nye the Science Guy raising issues of heavy water and nuclear waste disposal. How far we have come from the 80's and what solutions there are to those problems, or even how much a problem they really are to begin with I don't pretend to know.

I really appreciate your point of view on the free market working itself out, and I agree that too much regulation can and does throw a wrench in the system. I think on this topic there nay be more at stake than just how we affordably fuel ourselves in the future. Capitalism doesn't make a lot of concession for diminishing resources all the time. The Buffalo, redwoods and several different mineral rushes can show that we as a society don't necessarily either. We do tend to ride it till the wheels fall off. And there is the national security angle as well as the pollution angle that will hold different weights to different people, but can't be dismissed as non-existent. I am not an alarmist on this topic, but this alarm has been being ringing since before I was born. The opec embargo happened and we still are under opecs thumb. Sure there were real roadblocks put in the way of drilling here by environmentalists, but no other solution in 40 years? I think that is a combination of greed and apathy that came from a combination of big oil being very, very powerful and a generation or two that has not seen widespread hunger. Spoiled. We have had it so easy for so long we don't even believe that it is possible for things to be different. I hope it is not a case of us not believing poop stinks till we smell it, because all indicators point to that being the case. The lack of questions like Franki's--ie how will this really help us--is an indicator of that I fear. And the sub-prime thing, the credit card debt phenomenon, cheap goods from overseas. As a society we want to eat now and pay later, and if we can't pay later we want to get out of it for free. I know that is traditionally a liberal point of view, and still is in a lot of ways, but it really seems a lot more universal these days. I am afraid that it is heavily involved in the overwhelming rush to believe this is a solution that we will feel in the pocketbooks.

I wonder, just for the sake of discussion--if for some reason oil became even more expensive--all but prohibitively expensive. An oil embargo and a call in of international debts making the dollar plummet for example--would the US wither on the vine or would we see solutions come faster? I am certain that they would not all be palatable to the concerns I have the luxury of naming today, probably coal and immediate drilling everywhere viable as well as less refined versions of our gas and much, much less concern for emissions. But would there be more alternative ideas pushed faster as well? Is there a tipping point that doesn't require disaster to spark the movement?

Eli

[Frankiarmz]

"I wonder, just for the sake of discussion--if for some reason oil became even more expensive--all but prohibitively expensive. An oil embargo and a call in of international debts making the dollar plummet for example--would the US wither on the vine or would we see solutions come faster? I am certain that they would not all be palatable to the concerns I have the luxury of naming today, probably coal and immediate drilling everywhere viable as well as less refined versions of our gas and much, much less concern for emissions. But would there be more alternative ideas pushed faster as well? Is there a tipping point that doesn't require disaster to spark the movement?"

Eli

Eli, as much as I want to believe Americans would pull together and work beyond such a crisis, I am pretty sure it would be a disaster. Too many of us do not have alternative transportation and need to drive to work, schools and other non recreational places. Our society would be in a state of panic. I'm sure in the years since the last oil crisis of the 70's many millions of Americans have moved far away from the cities, and are now totally dependant on their personal transportation. Think of the millions who drive to medical facilities for life saving treatments? On the topic of Americans being spoiled, I think part of the blame lies with the advertising industry. I'm in my mid fifties and I remember as a child we only got icecream if a icecream truck slowed down or a special occassion whe we went to an icecream parlor. Our refridgerator was small and held some frozen meat, and basic foods like milk, eggs and butter. Over the years more and more processed foods found their way into the home and suddenly we could eat a wide variety of foods without ever leaving the home. My refridgerator is huge, icecream is always on hand and there is enough frozen food to feed our family for several days without eating the same thing twice. Years ago only high end cars had power accessories and air conditioning. Most folks had to roll their car window up and down by hand, AM radio only, no rear defroster, you can't imagine how far we have come and how spoiled we are! I was not in the service, but I worked with plenty of guys who were and being in the military toughens a person. If you took away our gasoline and air conditioning, disrupted our supply of packaged foods and made life difficult, it would not be a pretty picture. I have learned and adopted certain survival skills and my home is well stocked with emergency supplies and tools, but most of my neighbors don't even own a flashlight! Please don't even think of what a disruption to our fuel supply would do, we are not a prepared people in my opinion.

[DUNBAR]

tl;dr

[DuckButter]

"Be sure to put the mask on BEFORE any children in your care."

The instructions on airline oxygen masks, if you pass out while scrambling to put one on your child, you're useless to thyem.

In other words, we absolutely MUST do whats in our immediate interest, regardless how wrong it may seem...or we're gonna be pledging allegiance to a whole new flag pretty soon.

Drill, DEFINITELY.
But under no circumstances should we ever stop research and developement of alternative sources of energy.

[stxrus]

i for one am opposed to just drill, drill, drill. that is not going to do anything in the long run, IMHO. conserve, now that seems to be working...somewhat. i drive a small suzuki jeep and a 3/4 ton van. the van is a necessity for work and the suzuki is for everything else i need to do.

venezuela crude is more like venezuela crud. the have the sludge oil and it IS NOT anywhere close to the crude from most other places. we have Hovensa, one of the largest refineries in the world. it's about 10 miles from my house. they get their crude from venezuela (definately not $120/bbl oil) only 400 miles away. it is refined here and we are paying pennies less than CONUS. they explain world markets, yada, yada. we say BS, but they have the oil. sorta like the golden rule, "he with the gold rules"

there are still more SUVs per capita here than most places in n. america. no one wants to give up their SUVs. people are driving less. but not enough to make a difference.

everyone screams "tighten your belt" but no one wants to.

the short term is to cut back and save as much as possible. the long term is not in oil. maybe America can lead the way out of oil dependancy. it sure won't be asia.

and in the very long run it will be survival of the fittest.

steve

[NHMaster3015]

Who is Big Oil?

My dad is a retired school teaches. He's 82, never made more than 35 grand a year working. He pretty much lives off his Canadian oil stocks.

The teachers union I belong to has a couple thousand members. Our retirement has some of it's money vested in oil and energy stocks.

big oil isn't some big fat old guy behind a mahogany desk, smoking a cigar and counting hundred dollar bills. It's you and me and our neighbor.

For now every single aspect of the economy is driven by the cost and availability if energy and oil is at the center of the supply chain. In a few years maybe hydrogen, wind, wave, solar or who knows. But for now it's crude oil. As things stand now, it costs the refineries more to make gasoline than to sell it. Think about the ramifications of that.

Will drilling solve all our problems? Probably not, but untill we come up with viable alternatives, and because we know there is oil out there, why not use all available sources as we move a different direction?

YOU STUPID LIBERALS:ok:

I had to toss that in just for the fun of it. No real insult intended.

[AFM]

Lets not be hasty about oil as it pays a nice dividend each year.

Tony

[woodenstickers]

Thanks for replying guys.

I'm starting to see a pattern emerge, capitalism ie $ to be made vs other concerns.

NH. Something you wrote interests me because it seems to contradict something Mark has said regarding the profits in oil. He has maintained that if drilling becomes too difficult/expensive due to politics that the companies will give up on exploration altogether and just refine, that way they wouldn't be sinking their limited percentage of profits into exploration and extraction in the places they do have available that are not as potentially lucrative as those unavailable right now. You said that refining loses money for the companies. I am not playing a gotcha here, I really don't know the answer myself, so i want to clear it up for all of us.

I can understand the money aspect of this issue. I know that a huge portion of our (the US) economy and that of the world depends on the oil industry. If the concern is that American oil companies and their share holders are not making the money from our own resources that we could be, it is not the argument being floated by the politicians or the pundits. Not even in terms of how that would be beneficial to all of us in terms of the economy.

I know that the "oil barons" as I have called them are not the classic capitalists wearing top hats and monocles. But using my own recent company as an example I can tell you what a greedy corporate interest, publicly traded, can do. My ex-company had a formula for putting every competitor in refacing out of business everywhere they expanded to. It worked very well. They were able to undercut the prices by using their partners enormous buying power and also by running at a loss or near loss for as long as it took to drain the business from the small, medium and even not so small guys who were established. After they obliterated big box, and long standing local family business alike they raised their prices-in some cases higher than the competitors had them benchmarked. The argument could be made that they had an obligation to their shareholders to do this, it was a smart move as far as capitalism. But the customer lost because they have no choices anymore, the workers lost because as work dried up they were the only game in town (and believe me they used that to squeeze us every chance they got) and the community lost because local businesses that had served them disappeared. Should the community have tried to sue them or block them from being able to do their business because it was unfair? No. But would it have been in their best interests not to support them? In the long run, yes. As a whole, yes. With oil you are talking about not having that choice, a critical part of the free market.

So yes, big oil does exist. It is and has been a very powerful industry, powerful enough to shape politics and international relationships. Powerful enough that they will invest in the future as soon as it becomes too difficult to turn a buck by drilling and refining. That is how it works. Right now with their biggest reported earning in the history of capitalism they could invest in almost anything they want and become very successful at it--maybe not with the kind of profits they are posting now, not immediately, but free market or not it becomes a moral issue at some point. If the argument is that some people are doing very well financially from the recent surge in prices it is at the expense of millions of others who will suffer greatly because they are paying more than is affordable for a necessary commodity. Is that how the free market is supposed to work? If that is the case, then no, I don't want more drilling because I don't want some Americans, monocle and top hat or not, to get wealthier off the resources, environment and misery of the rest of us. If it truly is a profit driven position to want to drill I don't think it is in the majorities interests, even if the majority can be convinced that it is because they are scared right now.

But i still am not sure how it will effect the prices for the consumer. Is that truly part of the argument behind pro-drilling? How will it benefit those who are not invested in oil stocks? What are the reasons we should support it?



Eli

[woodenstickers]

Who is Big Oil?


YOU STUPID LIBERALS:ok:

I had to toss that in just for the fun of it. No real insult intended.

Hey, man, you almost made me spit my mocha latte chai half caf right on my incense burner!:D


Peace.

Eli AKA ~brother-soil~

[cpw]

Thanks for replying guys.
NH. Something you wrote interests me because it seems to contradict something Mark has said regarding the profits in oil. He has maintained that if drilling becomes too difficult/expensive due to politics that the companies will give up on exploration altogether and just refine, that way they wouldn't be sinking their limited percentage of profits into exploration and extraction in the places they do have available that are not as potentially lucrative as those unavailable right now. You said that refining loses money for the companies. I am not playing a gotcha here, I really don't know the answer myself, so i want to clear it up for all of us.

Refining isn't losing money right now, and can't for any period of time, because the companies will just stop doing it or go out of business. They aren't making as much though. Valero is a refiner only (unlike the integrated majors); their second quarter net profit dropped 67% from last year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/valero-energy-corp-net-falls/story.aspx?guid=%7BA89341AB-DCC0-4825-8EC0-71F1E773352C%7D&dist=msr_28

[woodenstickers]

Refining isn't losing money right now, and can't for any period of time, because the companies will just stop doing it or go out of business. They aren't making as much though. Valero is a refiner only (unlike the integrated majors); their second quarter net profit dropped 67% from last year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/valero-energy-corp-net-falls/story.aspx?guid=%7BA89341AB-DCC0-4825-8EC0-71F1E773352C%7D&dist=msr_28

So where are these record profits being made?

BTW, this is awesome. I have already gained a lot of perspective and information I didn't have before.


Eli

[woodenstickers]

tl;dr

ok

[cpw]

So where are these record profits being made?
For the majors the record profits are being made for exploration/drilling. The other two big parts are chemicals and refining, which are having their margins squeezed (even at the majors). The refining/chemical margins aren't so good, because the raw material is crude oil and that is going up faster than the end products.

[DUNBAR]

ok



It was too long a read for my beaty eyes last night.


All I know is my carbon footprint is huge between my business/office and anything else that is brought to me by truck/train or plane.


I don't have any way of stopping it unless I cease to exist, and I don't think where they drill, how they drill, or anything for this matter will curb the design.

I for one would think that when the crunch does come, nascar should be a track without spectators, a wimbledon match with just the two playing and referees,

a baseball game without hotdogs and apple pie. Just two teams in an empty stadium getting their 9 in.


Extinguish the wasteful spending that associates with all the fuel burned in regards to entertainment value, including the short trip to walmart to buy $8.99 jewelry.


All of the above will never happen, even with we really get soaring fuel prices.

I am the spitting image of wasteful spending, with the desire to develop businesses I own for a better way of life. I can be judged the same as others judge me for my fuel consumption.

[woodenstickers]

It was too long a read for my beaty eyes last night.


All I know is my carbon footprint is huge between my business/office and anything else that is brought to me by truck/train or plane.


I don't have any way of stopping it unless I cease to exist, and I don't think where they drill, how they drill, or anything for this matter will curb the design.

I for one would think that when the crunch does come, nascar should be a track without spectators, a wimbledon match with just the two playing and referees,

a baseball game without hotdogs and apple pie. Just two teams in an empty stadium getting their 9 in.


Extinguish the wasteful spending that associates with all the fuel burned in regards to entertainment value, including the short trip to walmart to buy $8.99 jewelry.


All of the above will never happen, even with we really get soaring fuel prices.

I am the spitting image of wasteful spending, with the desire to develop businesses I own for a better way of life. I can be judged the same as others judge me for my fuel consumption.

Agreed. Count me in too. The amount of waste I produce is huge. I am a consumer and I probably won't stop until I have no choice. I have moved further from the "grid" when I was younger, even contemplated attempts at becoming self sufficient and studied organic farming. But then I realized I like people to much to drop out of society so I went fishing instead and vowed to quit trying to rearrange deck chairs on the titanic. Every now and then I get distracted from the violin music by the creaking of the bow though.



Eli

[wbrooks]

Here is something to think about....
Canada exports more oil (mostly to you) than it imports.
Our oil based products (gas, diesel, propane) have always been significantly more expensive here than in the US.
I highly doubt that drilling in the US would help with consumer prices.
OPEC has already stated that oil production/delivery is already higher than demand (ie no shortage)
IMO the ridiculous price for crude is driven solely by market speculation, the only way to curb this is to increase the cost to speculate

[DuckButter]

I got a call from another forum member the other day.

He found a fantastic deal on a larger truck, a steal.

I need a larger truck like I need a new back, but the problem is I feel my stomache cramp every time I fill that tank as is.
If I could find a cube van or box truck with a 4 cylinder, I'd go for it.
As it stands now I am losing work for people who want free estimates on jobs my gut tells me won't pan out.
We live 1/4 mile from our supermarket, yet even then I hesitate to drive unless it's a necessity.

[cpw]

We live 1/4 mile from our supermarket, yet even then I hesitate to drive unless it's a necessity.
When I lived close to the grocery store I actually didn't mind walking there. It is especially helpful if you can go with a baby stroller, because you can fit a lot of stuff in there and don't need to carry the bags home.

[shup]

Oil is coming down because the market couldn't last at the high price's.

Oil is coming down because it is a election year.

Next spring gas will go up and we'll be here talking the same c.

shup

[DuckButter]

Oil is coming down because the market couldn't last at the high price's.

Oil is coming down because it is a election year.

Next spring gas will go up and we'll be here talking the same c.

shup

Ironically I just popped back into this thread as I watch the stock market.

A thing I've noticed in the last two market surges on oil..
The price of gas sky-rockets then comes back down, but it never really goes back to the price it was before the surge, regardless what the cost of oil drops back down to.

Almost seems like an "engineered" market surge to keep us busy panicking over the prices, then relieved when it comes back down depsite it being higher than ever before the surge.

[DuckButter]

When I lived close to the grocery store I actually didn't mind walking there. It is especially helpful if you can go with a baby stroller, because you can fit a lot of stuff in there and don't need to carry the bags home.

That won't happen.
Not with ten bags of groceries, crossing two major intersections with heavy traffic & a 20 minute walk each way.

[Masterplumb]

Good post Eli. I believe that drilling will most likely bring down the price of oil but not significantly. I also believe that we will be able to do it faster then the 10 years that most people state.

I believe the only way to solve this crisis is to use every means available i.e. solar, wind, ethenol, oil, gas, nuclear, hydrogen, etc. Drilling is not going to solve the issue at hand by itself, but it will help in the big picture.

There are more concerns at hand then just price alone. There is national security to worry about. We need to become self sufficient at home. I for one will not give up my suv's......yet, and I bet many others feel the same too.

Oil is the lifeblood of this country, everything we do revolves around it. Even with new technologies that will come out and use alternate sources of energy you still will have people that have gasoline cars and oil fired water heaters and boilers that can not afford to convert. What about them?

Again, I am not against alternate sources of energy but we must realize that we need to drill now but we must also realize that we need to move foward with other technologies as well.

:eek: "I'm John McCain, and I approve this message"......"Im Barack Hussein Obama, I don't approve this message, wait....now I do.......No I really don't, wait let me ask my advisors um....... Ill get back to you on this issue at a later date" :eek:

[DuckButter]

Thought I'd toss a lil' good news into the mix here.

Dow went up 330+ points today, oil dropped to just over $118/barrel.


I might celebrate by taking a ride around the block with my family.

[cpw]

I might celebrate by taking a ride around the block with my family.
My wife wanted to go out somewhere expensive, so I took her to the gas station.

[DuckButter]

My wife wanted to go out somewhere expensive, so I took her to the gas station.

:rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:

[NHMaster3015]

The info I got on refining was a short piece on cnn If I remember correctly. This of course has only because of the unusual flip in the product prices. Forever #2 fuel oil has been less expensive than gasolene. Are the refiners loosing money? I seriously doubt it.

I think one of the problems here is that no one person seems to be able to sort the whole mess out. The oil companies have thier side, politicians have a side and we the consumer are stuck in the pot with the press fanning the flames as usual.

Big oil. The argument about excessive profits has been raging ever since the first spear makers went into business. This is nothing new. Turn back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and the same arguments were made against the steel mills, oil companies, auto makers and whoever was able to create huge profit making corperations. But when you get down to it, this nation was built on private enterprise, large and small. Big oil employs tens of thousands of people world wide. Their profits pay our salaries. Our salaries buy goods at Wal Mart and the circle goes round and round. If we start putting limits on profits then we go down the road of socialism. Can the government be trusted to operate the big oil companies? And what's to stop them from taking over wal mart and home depot next because theymake too much money and finally what stops them from taking more money from your business (woops they are already doing that)

Invention and enterprise will change and drive the market. Problem is we have all been living in the " I want it now" society for so long that we just don't want to wait.

[BHD]

I think we need to be energy independent,

If that takes off shore drilling then so be it,

It may or may not drop the price, as oil is traded on a world scale, but if it makes us energy independent it is worth it, why should we be sending money to people who want to see us as a people and a nation dead, lets at lest keep in our own country, or a the least with countries that are true allies,

the big issue is dependable supplies, if you think food is expensive, a large part of food cost is transportation and preparation (all takes energy),

with oil food will not be transported, emergency services will not be able to move, people will not be able to make it to work, businesses will go out of business if cost of energy get to high, and LACK OF SUPPLIES WILL REALLY DRIVE UP THE COST>

but it there is a major disruption of oil supplies to this county even jsut a few percent the price sky rockets, but this country can not run with out energy, just go to the breaker box and click the main breaker and see how long you go before you not jsut want it back on but demand it back on,

in the same breath it is only logical that alternate energies be pushed, (problem is alternate energies usually are more expensive than oil or coal),

so in a world ran by the $, and how much of it you get to keep in your pockets, using alternate energies does not go far when it cost more,

also so much of the cost of alternate energies is up front cost,

If I want to buy a wind turbine for the farm I need to shell out $50 to 100,000 depending on model and type of unit, to supply the power needs I have, so I ask this question, of my self I currently pay $150 or so each month for the grid, the the payment on the system would be in the $350 to $500 min if not more for going on my own, so what Do I do (reality here, I DIY ;) , hoping to put up a 10 kw unit, of my own design and construction), but currently I buy from the grid and power company.

but yes we as a nation need a energy policy that pushes energy Independence, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, cut off our oil even a small percentage and were nearly dead in the water.
at the growth of energy needs in this country it is obvious that we are going to need a combination of conversation, exploration, and renewable to continue the growth we currently enjoy,

and by the way I actually sell some carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) through a farm group, where we pool our available credits and make a large enough block to trade,

the cost of #2 blame it on the EPA, they changed the sulfur requirements and it cost more to refine diesels now,

[NHMaster3015]

Well, I actually agree with most of the posts on this thread. So I'm heading outside to check my tires for proper inflation after it stops raining:D

[ToUtahNow]

Eli,

Remember Bush signed the Executive Order on July 14th. I've long said OPEC would respond to just the threat we would resume drilling for oil. I'm sure there is a lot more to the entire debate than this but consider these numbers for the price of a barrel of crude oil:

2008 Jun- 2 to Jun- 6 127.75 124.33 122.30 127.93 138.51

2008 Jun- 9 to Jun-13 134.44 131.38 136.43 136.91 134.84

2008 Jun-16 to Jun-20 134.52 133.99 136.54 131.88 134.78

2008 Jun-23 to Jun-27 135.98 136.49 133.92 138.91 139.69

2008 Jun-30 to Jul- 4 139.96 141.06 143.74 145.31

2008 Jul- 7 to Jul-11 141.38 136.06 135.88 141.47 144.96

2008 Jul-14 to Jul-18 145.16 138.68 134.63 129.43 128.94

2008 Jul-21 to Jul-25 131.43 127.25 123.73 124.62 122.59

2008 Jul-28 to Aug- 1 124.72 122.21 126.74 124.17 125.03

2008 Aug- 4 to Aug- 8 121.45 118.71 118.57 119.84 115.42

2008 Aug-11 to Aug-15 114.44 113.10

Sorry I lost the format. Here is a link:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm

Mark

[Service Guy]

Nice observation Mark, and I believe you are on to something. I for one support local drilling as a temporary measure until we can find ways to be more oil independent in the future. I am glad that all of us Americans as a democratic majority are taking the oil crisis seriously and hopefully positive things will happen in the next few years...and decades to come.
I am tired of bipartisan bickering and I truly hope and believe that democrats and republicans alike will unite to solve this problem. UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

American is still a great country, and we can solve this problem.
:way-to-go:

[drtyhands]

I'm against drilling.I like leaving in the ground in case of emergency.I would rather wait till we have the technology to wage war
WITHOUT our oil before we burn it up.

Besides,I like the way the glutones are looking to technology to help ease their pain.

[ToUtahNow]

I'm against drilling.I like leaving in the ground in case of emergency.I would rather wait till we have the technology to wage war
WITHOUT our oil before we burn it up.

Besides,I like the way the glutones are looking to technology to help ease their pain.


I would like to do everything and when better methods are found scale down on crude. Oil is no different than how the electric companies generate power. Hydro plants will hold water in reservoirs until there is a premium to generate than release the water. During cheap power they actually pump the water from an after bay back into a reservoir. I would love to have the oil available to us and never use it. The mere fact that it is available on the market will prevent hostile countries from holding us hostage over oil.

Mark

[drtyhands]

I would like to do everything and when better methods are found scale down on crude. Oil is no different than how the electric companies generate power. Hydro plants will hold water in reservoirs until there is a premium to generate than release the water. During cheap power they actually pump the water from an after bay back into a reservoir. I would love to have the oil available to us and never use it. The mere fact that it is available on the market will prevent hostile countries from holding us hostage over oil.

Mark

I would love the same Mark.

But Americans are Pigs.We save nothing.I have no idea why our pants have pockets.

[ToUtahNow]

I would love the same Mark.

But Americans are Pigs.We save nothing.I have no idea why our pants have pockets.

The only time pockets are of any use is as a foreman. Once you move up to the boss you cross your arms instead.

Mark

[drtyhands]

The only time pockets are of any use is as a foreman. Once you move up to the boss you cross your arms instead.

Mark
:jumping:

[BHD]

I would like to do everything and when better methods are found scale down on crude. Oil is no different than how the electric companies generate power. Hydro plants will hold water in reservoirs until there is a premium to generate than release the water. During cheap power they actually pump the water from an after bay back into a reservoir. I would love to have the oil available to us and never use it. The mere fact that it is available on the market will prevent hostile countries from holding us hostage over oil.

Mark


I agree, but unless the infrastructure is set up in place to with draw it in nearly a moment's notice, to be able to start to extract it "tomorrow" not 10 years, from now if some type of emergency happens, so that means to drill now and set it up at lest, and probly with draw some to keep it operational, but the government COULD set up a "ready reserve" and give (local oil) some type of tax break or other for keeping a group of wells are ready (at lest to be able to have them pumping before the strategic reserves would be depleted). I would prefer it much quicker, so if the ME blow up, were not held hostage and put in 1930 depression type situation here, do to NO oil.

[Frankiarmz]

Drilling here is making more and more sense in spite of the fact that I have been against it for years. Situations change and with the skyrocketing price of crude I agree we must put multiple strategies into play. Give the oil companies the green light but have them take proper precautions not to ruin the environment (it can be done). While this aproach may take seven or so years it will send a message that we are on our way to being self sufficient. Alternative energies will cetainly move forward as well in the short term, such as the large scale solar electricity genrating facilities planned for California and thirty other states. Hybrid or plugin cars will be more widely used and if we keep cutting back on our driving there may be light at the end of the tunnel. I would also like to see the USA become more independant of foreign coutries for our consumer goods, food and other essentials. I'm not suggesting isolationism, but rather a productive society that can take care of it's own and not be at the mercy of india and china for so much of what we need to live. I remember using good quality parts and materials made right here in the good old USA and they were better that those "made in Japan". Now we are stuck with inferior goods made in india, china and elsewhere, these parts and materials used in construction, auto manufacturing and repair along with food from these countries puts us at risk. We cannot control the quality or quantity of what we recieve. Why remain at such a disadvantage? Sorry if this suggested change would hurt some of you in the stock market who depend on foreign companies to replace American based companies and workers.

[woodenstickers]

I would like to do everything and when better methods are found scale down on crude. Oil is no different than how the electric companies generate power. Hydro plants will hold water in reservoirs until there is a premium to generate than release the water. During cheap power they actually pump the water from an after bay back into a reservoir. I would love to have the oil available to us and never use it. The mere fact that it is available on the market will prevent hostile countries from holding us hostage over oil.

Mark

Is that what is going to happen with the newly drilled oil, because I hadn't heard that. In fact I still have yet to hear how drilling will help out anyone except the oil industry, and those who will gain from it financially. If that is the argument for drilling, so be it, but the idea that we will have it ready for our use in emergency or set up to extract it when needed and most importantly that it will affect the price for our fuel? Come on.

If people are for the drilling because there is money in it, fine. But what I find objectionable is using fear and falsities to get the public who will not gain any security, money, savings or benefit whatsoever from the venture to go along. That is what I see happening here.

Any explanation as to why oil is up nearly 400% from after 9/11? I'd find that a lot more telling than speculation after a Bush speech, as well as no rebound after the stalling by the Dems. Because I'll tell you something, there was an energy crisis here in Cali that had rolling brownouts--huge gouging and huge political ramifications for the government here that turned out to be 100% manipulation. Enron ring a bell? It was all bull. I smell the same thing again.

I wonder how the Bush family is making out during this crisis? I wonder how they will be affected by the opening of offshore drilling? I wonder how Mr. Cheney's "blind trusts" are fairing. And Condi's?


And again, just so it is well known that I detest both sides and think they are all full of it, Nancy Pelosi talking about opening up the oil reserves is a harmful, disgusting, ridiculous notion. It makes me sick that these are the people who are in charge.



Eli

[Masterplumb]

Is that what is going to happen with the newly drilled oil, because I hadn't heard that. In fact I still have yet to hear how drilling will help out anyone except the oil industry, and those who will gain from it financially. If that is the argument for drilling, so be it, but the idea that we will have it ready for our use in emergency or set up to extract it when needed and most importantly that it will affect the price for our fuel? Come on.

If people are for the drilling because there is money in it, fine. But what I find objectionable is using fear and falsities to get the public who will not gain any security, money, savings or benefit whatsoever from the venture to go along. That is what I see happening here.

Any explanation as to why oil is up nearly 400% from after 9/11? I'd find that a lot more telling than speculation after a Bush speech, as well as no rebound after the stalling by the Dems. Because I'll tell you something, there was an energy crisis here in Cali that had rolling brownouts--huge gouging and huge political ramifications for the government here that turned out to be 100% manipulation. Enron ring a bell? It was all bull. I smell the same thing again.

I wonder how the Bush family is making out during this crisis? I wonder how they will be affected by the opening of offshore drilling? I wonder how Mr. Cheney's "blind trusts" are fairing. And Condi's?


And again, just so it is well known that I detest both sides and think they are all full of it, Nancy Pelosi talking about opening up the oil reserves is a harmful, disgusting, ridiculous notion. It makes me sick that these are the people who are in charge.



Eli

Wow, where is the proof of this? I know, I know, Im crazy if I dont think that politicians have their hand in the kettle, but please show me the proof because you are leveling serious allegations. I think you have gone mad with all these conspiracy theories.

[woodenstickers]

Wow, where is the proof of this? I know, I know, Im crazy if I dont think that politicians have their hand in the kettle, but please show me the proof because you are leveling serious allegations. I think you have gone mad with all these conspiracy theories.

There isn't one thing I said that wasn't widely reported on in California. Look it up. It's not a theory when they put people in jail for it, Chris.


I know, I know, anyone who thinks that politicians are corrupt or corruptible must be a wing-nut. :rolleyes:

And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies.


Eli

[Frankiarmz]

There isn't one thing I said that wasn't widely reported on in California. Look it up. It's not a theory when they put people in jail for it, Chris.


I know, I know, anyone who thinks that politicians are corrupt or corruptible must be a wing-nut. :rolleyes:

And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies.


Eli

Eli, I agree with you but feel the same is true no matter who is in charge. Power corrupts! In spite of the checks and balances of our government there is not much being done to combat the influence of lobbyists and other powerful interests from manipulating our legislators for their own purposes. I would not single out the republicans because the democrats are just as corrupt. Unless we can monitor and control the human element in government and business, these problems will repeat themselves. We can build safe nuclear power plants and oil barges (Exxon Valdez) but put a drunk at the controls and you have a problem. I watched "Shark Week" on cable recently and was scared by the thought of such horror. Fact is sharks kill less than a handful of people a year, how many adults and children do we lose to people driving under the influence or distracted on a cell phone? What makes government honest, machines and cars safe? The weak link is us!

[Masterplumb]

There isn't one thing I said that wasn't widely reported on in California. Look it up. It's not a theory when they put people in jail for it, Chris.


I know, I know, anyone who thinks that politicians are corrupt or corruptible must be a wing-nut. :rolleyes:

And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies.


Eli

In all seriousness Eli, it reminds me when I first got married and bought a co-op. After a few years I became president of the co-op board. There is no compensation or fringe benefits to the position, basically you are donating time. Well I started hearing things from others that this one was accusing me of this and that one was accusing me of that while I was spending more time with co-op business then I was my own family, but no one wanted to do the "job" I was doing. Imagine here I am with a newborn child and Im spending all this time to make everyones life better except my own and people are accusing me of things that were not true. Almost like a politician. Thats why I ask you for hardcore proof and not just associations. When I finally had enough and quit the position everyone wanted to know why I quit, so I told them to take my position and see for yourself.

[woodenstickers]

In all seriousness Eli, it reminds me when I first got married and bought a co-op. After a few years I became president of the co-op board. There is no compensation or fringe benefits to the position, basically you are donating time. Well I started hearing things from others that this one was accusing me of this and that one was accusing me of that while I was spending more time with co-op business then I was my own family, but no one wanted to do the "job" I was doing. Imagine here I am with a newborn child and Im spending all this time to make everyones life better except my own and people are accusing me of things that were not true. Almost like a politician. Thats why I ask you for hardcore proof and not just associations. When I finally had enough and quit the position everyone wanted to know why I quit, so I told them to take my position and see for yourself.

I see your point but I don't see the parallel. When you take elected GOVERNMENT office there is a responsibility to NOT have a conflict of interest or even an appearance of one. Hell, even in companies I worked for you had to be aware of the appearance of impropriety as an installer of the product. There is more than an appearance here. It's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that these folks and their families have or have had direct ties to companies who have made record profits during their time in office may just be coincidence, but it should not even be an issue because they should not be qualified to hold the office. It's true of lawyers, CEOs even Martha Stewart has to be careful of that now, but not the people in highest office?

Look, I trust you more than I would trust nearly any politician at any important level of government. You were donating your time. You work hard for a living and didn't get where you are based on campaigns and lobby money. To be a politician you have to be a certain kind of person to begin with, otherwise you don't have a snowballs chance to make it anywhere. I give you more credit than any of them on face value.

That is what conflict of interest is. It is not proof that they manipulated anything, just that they could have interests other than what their office demands. That's it. Making it so someone else is taking care of their portfolio or changing the name of the oil tanker that was christened in your honor don't cut it.


Eli

[Masterplumb]

I see your point but I don't see the parallel. When you take elected GOVERNMENT office there is a responsibility to NOT have a conflict of interest or even an appearance of one. Hell, even in companies I worked for you had to be aware of the appearance of impropriety as an installer of the product. There is more than an appearance here. It's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that these folks and their families have or have had direct ties to companies who have made record profits during their time in office may just be coincidence, but it should not even be an issue because they should not be qualified to hold the office. It's true of lawyers, CEOs even Martha Stewart has to be careful of that now, but not the people in highest office?

Look, I trust you more than I would trust nearly any politician at any important level of government. You were donating your time. You work hard for a living and didn't get where you are based on campaigns and lobby money. To be a politician you have to be a certain kind of person to begin with, otherwise you don't have a snowballs chance to make it anywhere. I give you more credit than any of them on face value.

That is what conflict of interest is. It is not proof that they manipulated anything, just that they could have interests other than what their office demands. That's it. Making it so someone else is taking care of their portfolio or changing the name of the oil tanker that was christened in your honor don't cut it.


Eli

Not to keep going on and on with this but please show me evidence of a conflict of interest. Again, REAL evidence please.

[woodenstickers]

Not to keep going on and on with this but please show me evidence of a conflict of interest. Again, REAL evidence please.

Dude, I think you are mistaken as to what a conflict of interest is. It doesn't mean that there is impropriety. It means that there is something, in the case I a speaking of now business relationships, that CAN have the potential to make a person not live up to the duties of their job--whatever the job is.

For example, a doctor who has a husband that is a pharmicutical rep may not have any alterior motives if they prescribe the medication that her husbands company makes, but the fact that she has that connection means there is a conflict of interest. It doesn't mean she is acting on it.

Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Fact. He still knows the board, still presumably has friends in the upper management of that company. While he is in office he gave up his financial stake in that company. But a blind trust is also common. Clinton had them, Bush has them. But we are talking about a company that has gotten extremely lucrative contracts with the government. They always have, even pre-Bush, but the question is not if they got these contracts BECAUSE of Cheney, but the fact that there is a lot of opportunity for that to come into play. My point is not how they got such big contracts, but why is their former CEO the best choice we have for VP? It doesn't make sense.

Condi was the head of Chevrons public policy department. She had an oil tanker named in her honor. Bush has oil interests. Bush Senior is on the board for the Carlyle Group, an international company that has interests in Saudi Arabia--including the Bin Ladens who have disowned Osama.

Look Chris, this is all public information. This is not something that needed to be uncovered--it is openly admitted to.

Just so we are clear, I am not saying that these companies are where they are because of who they know in the government, I am saying it does not make sense to elect people who have obvious ties to industries that can and do, and in this case have made a mint off of the decisions that this administration has made. Maybe it all is above board, maybe if Gore won they would have made even more money, but it isn't right.

I'm not even allowed to work in the store my girlfriend manages. We wouldn't do anything wrong, in fact we work well together, but we don't get the chance because of what COULD happen. That is a conflict of interest.

See what I mean? I am guessing you didn't know the background of this cabinet, but imagine if a dem came from the private sector as a Alternative energy company CEO, and then when in office pushed for regulation and closing down the oil industry. Well, that's what dems do anyway, right? But the appearance that he would make money for his friends, or even his blind trust would outrage people, myself included!

These powerful companies got their people into the highest office in the land, and that is besides the millions and millions in lobbying they do in Washington already. When is enough enough? We can find better candidates than ex-oil and military contractor execs! Can't we?

Eli

[Masterplumb]

Dude, I think you are mistaken as to what a conflict of interest is. It doesn't mean that there is impropriety. It means that there is something, in the case I a speaking of now business relationships, that CAN have the potential to make a person not live up to the duties of their job--whatever the job is.

Yes I am aware of what a conflict of interest is. I was asking where it was. Maybe I don't explain myself well on the computer but I do know what conflict of interest is.

For example, a doctor who has a husband that is a pharmicutical rep may not have any alterior motives if they prescribe the medication that her husbands company makes, but the fact that she has that connection means there is a conflict of interest. It doesn't mean she is acting on it.

Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Fact. He still knows the board, still presumably has friends in the upper management of that company. While he is in office he gave up his financial stake in that company. But a blind trust is also common. Clinton had them, Bush has them. But we are talking about a company that has gotten extremely lucrative contracts with the government. They always have, even pre-Bush, but the question is not if they got these contracts BECAUSE of Cheney, but the fact that there is a lot of opportunity for that to come into play. My point is not how they got such big contracts, but why is their former CEO the best choice we have for VP? It doesn't make sense.



Condi was the head of Chevrons public policy department. She had an oil tanker named in her honor. Bush has oil interests. Bush Senior is on the board for the Carlyle Group, an international company that has interests in Saudi Arabia--including the Bin Ladens who have disowned Osama.

I didn't realize Bush, Condi & Cheney made the final decisions on who gets awarded contracts? I didn't realize that was in their job description :confused:.

Look Chris, this is all public information. This is not something that needed to be uncovered--it is openly admitted to.

Just so we are clear, I am not saying that these companies are where they are because of who they know in the government, I am saying it does not make sense to elect people who have obvious ties to industries that can and do, and in this case have made a mint off of the decisions that this administration has made. Maybe it all is above board, maybe if Gore won they would have made even more money, but it isn't right.

It would be impossible to find someone who wouldn't have a "conflict" somewhere

I'm not even allowed to work in the store my girlfriend manages. We wouldn't do anything wrong, in fact we work well together, but we don't get the chance because of what COULD happen. That is a conflict of interest.

See what I mean? I am guessing you didn't know the background of this cabinet, but imagine if a dem came from the private sector as a Alternative energy company CEO, and then when in office pushed for regulation and closing down the oil industry. Well, that's what dems do anyway, right? But the appearance that he would make money for his friends, or even his blind trust would outrage people, myself included!

I do know their background but again they are not the ones that make a decision on the points you raised and unless you can show me where either Bush, Condi or Cheney made decisions affecting contracts or influenced others making decisions on those matters it is nothing but B.S.

These powerful companies got their people into the highest office in the land, and that is besides the millions and millions in lobbying they do in Washington already. When is enough enough? We can find better candidates than ex-oil and military contractor execs! Can't we?

Eli

:barf:

[woodenstickers]

:barf:

Dude, don't be silly. Energy policy decisions directly affect those companies or otherwise why would they have lobbies in government with anyone who doesn't make the final decision. At this point this discussion is getting tiresome. Why did Cheney give up his personal finacial stake in the company if there is no influence his decisions could have on the company. The decision to go to war, the decisions to use the number of forces they did, the attempts to open offshore drilling all directly affect these companies bottom line in a huge way. Again, that doesn't have to be proven as the reason they made the decisions, only that there is a conflict of interest that could influence those decisions. Not only that, those industries can directly affect the country and the public interest. They should not have representatives, fresh off their boards in the whitehouse! You can't defend that so you keep trying to make it as though I am saying Cheney signed a contract with KBR and asking me to prove something that is irrelevant.

Geeze, it seems like you support having HMO directors get the job as the Surgeon General. It is not necessary. If you don't see an issue with the war not being at all what we were told it would be, and the former company that our VP who made a lot of decisions towards that happening getting incredibly rich off of contracts that they have been proven not to live up to at the soldiers expense, we just disagree. You don't trust that Obama doesn't secretly hate this country because he didn't wear a flag button but you believe that all the companies that have their former staff in the whitehouse just happened to get record profits while the economy slips for everyone else? I ask you again to address what you would say if it was was a former Alt. Energy CEO who was a Dem.? No problem?

We have different priorities when it comes to politics, Chris. This has been made clear several times. I don't like having oil execs in the white house, you don't like that Obama's name sounds like Osama. I don't like that government spending and growth has gone unchecked with no conceivable way to balance the budget unless taxes are raised and that we will HAVE to pay for it for generations, you don't like that Obama changes his mind about issues for political gain. We just have to agree to disagree about what is of more importance.

As much as you trust that everything is on the up and up unless a carpenter in San Bruno can come up with what would be top secret documentation anyway, I am going to repeat, it is the fact that it could influence their decisions in ANY WAY, even a little away from the public interest.



Eli

[Masterplumb]

Dude, don't be silly. Energy policy decisions directly affect those companies or otherwise why would they have lobbies in government with anyone who doesn't make the final decision. At this point this discussion is getting tiresome. Why did Cheney give up his personal finacial stake in the company if there is no influence his decisions could have on the company. The decision to go to war, the decisions to use the number of forces they did, the attempts to open offshore drilling all directly affect these companies bottom line in a huge way. Again, that doesn't have to be proven as the reason they made the decisions, only that there is a conflict of interest that could influence those decisions. Not only that, those industries can directly affect the country and the public interest. They should not have representatives, fresh off their boards in the whitehouse! You can't defend that so you keep trying to make it as though I am saying Cheney signed a contract with KBR and asking me to prove something that is irrelevant.

Geeze, it seems like you support having HMO directors get the job as the Surgeon General. It is not necessary. If you don't see an issue with the war not being at all what we were told it would be, and the former company that our VP who made a lot of decisions towards that happening getting incredibly rich off of contracts that they have been proven not to live up to at the soldiers expense, we just disagree. You don't trust that Obama doesn't secretly hate this country because he didn't wear a flag button but you believe that all the companies that have their former staff in the whitehouse just happened to get record profits while the economy slips for everyone else? I ask you again to address what you would say if it was was a former Alt. Energy CEO who was a Dem.? No problem?

We have different priorities when it comes to politics, Chris. This has been made clear several times. I don't like having oil execs in the white house, you don't like that Obama's name sounds like Osama. I don't like that government spending and growth has gone unchecked with no conceivable way to balance the budget unless taxes are raised and that we will HAVE to pay for it for generations, you don't like that Obama changes his mind about issues for political gain. We just have to agree to disagree about what is of more importance.

Dude, you have no clue. I don't care what his name is, it's his policies, duh. How about Obama and Antoine "Tony" Rezco? Is that ok or was that a conflict of interest? If he put himself in that sort of position as a state senator what would he do as president, or are those ok?

As much as you trust that everything is on the up and up unless a carpenter in San Bruno can come up with what would be top secret documentation anyway, I am going to repeat, it is the fact that it could influence their decisions in ANY WAY, even a little away from the public interest.



Eli

Even I am tired with the conflict of interest baloney. Chaney the V.P. has NO influence on contracts and I will ask you either show me proof that Cheney had something to do with contracts given out or just let it go.

[Frankiarmz]

Even I am tired with the conflict of interest baloney. Chaney the V.P. has NO influence on contracts and I will ask you either show me proof that Cheney had something to do with contracts given out or just let it go.

I'd like to stick my two cents worth here. There isn't always proof to back up allegations of impropriety when the circumstances lead us to that logical conclusion. OJ being found innocent, my priest winning the new car raffle, the person who won the yet to be announced new tool by Ridgid with only his second post! We are not talking about volunteer work where small minded people are jealous, we are talking about positions of power being held by people with ties and histories to the businesses and industries that profit from their decisions. Maybe you can attribute some of these thing to coincidence but appearance is important and it doesn't look right. My problem is how to elect people to these high political positions who do not have such histories and do not make such relationships on the way up. Cheney may be a very honest man, but it doesn't look good.

[Masterplumb]

I'd like to stick my two cents worth here. There isn't always proof to back up allegations of impropriety when the circumstances lead us to that logical conclusion. OJ being found innocent, my priest winning the new car raffle, the person who won the yet to be announced new tool by Ridgid with only his second post! We are not talking about volunteer work where small minded people are jealous, we are talking about positions of power being held by people with ties and histories to the businesses and industries that profit from their decisions. Maybe you can attribute some of these thing to coincidence but appearance is important and it doesn't look right. My problem is how to elect people to these high political positions who do not have such histories and do not make such relationships on the way up. Cheney may be a very honest man, but it doesn't look good.

How about the girl that was raped by the guy who claims he is innocent? All the evidence may point to him but unless there is either an eyewitness to corroborate or "d.n.a." left behind the guy is innocent until proven guilty. All the evidence may suggest something but it doesn't mean that is the case.

[cpw]

I'd like to stick my two cents worth here. There isn't always proof to back up allegations of impropriety when the circumstances lead us to that logical conclusion. OJ being found innocent, my priest winning the new car raffle, the person who won the yet to be announced new tool by Ridgid with only his second post! We are not talking about volunteer work where small minded people are jealous, we are talking about positions of power being held by people with ties and histories to the businesses and industries that profit from their decisions. Maybe you can attribute some of these thing to coincidence but appearance is important and it doesn't look right. My problem is how to elect people to these high political positions who do not have such histories and do not make such relationships on the way up. Cheney may be a very honest man, but it doesn't look good.
But Cheney divested his Halliburton holdings specifically so that hey doesn't have any interest in how large the company's profits are.

[Masterplumb]

But Cheney divested his Halliburton holdings specifically so that hey doesn't have any interest in how large the company's profits are.

Oh come on Charles don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy

[Bob D.]

There's some interesting history (at least one mans version of it) on this site:

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

[woodenstickers]

Oh come on Charles don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy

You don't seem to be reading what I am saying very well. There is no conspiracy theory put forth by me anywhere. I'll say it one more time, and then if you decide to ask me to prove something that I didn't claim I'll give up on it.

Conflict of interest does not mean that there was any improper act. It means that there is POTENTIAL for there to be a conflict between a persons duties to their job and what is best for them, their friends, their family, their future endevors or anything other than what their job demands. Read that carefully, because asking me to show you where Cheney had anything to do directly with a contract with Halliburton means you are missing the point entirely, and don't know what a conflict of interest is. Your desire to call me a conspiracy theorist is getting in the way of you answering MY question, which is why would we have people who have had a major role in industries that are part and parcel to the way the government runs from the private sector in the whitehouse. I really doubt you don't get the distinction at this point and assume you are skirting the question.

If someone starts dating their boss and the boss is told one of them has to leave the company or be moved to a different department because the relationship creates a conflict of interest, and that boss says "show me proof that I treated her differently because we are dating", the HR department will tell them to look up what conflict of interest means. That is what I am telling you now. It doesn't matter if there was anything improper. Get it yet?:banghead:



Eli

[woodenstickers]

But Cheney divested his Halliburton holdings specifically so that hey doesn't have any interest in how large the company's profits are.

He has given up all of his current finacial interest in the company, as well as given his stock options to charity. That is only his personal finacial stake. To me there is a lot more that can create a conflict of interest. Just the fact that he is that close to the company brass, the fact that his friends are in a position to gain from decisions made the office, and as far a I know there is no clause saying he will not be hired by them after his term is up. It goes well beyond his personal bank account.

In the case of oil, not only do government decisions affect their business, but their business can, as we have seen clearly recently, affect political process.

Aside to Chris-No, I don't have proof of this in my living room, but read the word "can" very carefully.

If you guys don't know what happened with the brown outs in California and the fraud that went on, look into it. Or call me a wing-nut and blindly trust what you are being told.

Again, I ask this question, why would we put the people who are involved in these private, powerful and influencial industries in charge of our well being as our representatives? Even if they are beyond human and wouldn't let it affect them in any way, even slightly, we know where their heads are at if not their hearts. That is what I don't get. They can be perfect angels, so what? There should be better choices.


Eli

[woodenstickers]

There's some interesting history (at least one mans version of it) on this site:

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Thanks! That is awesome, I learned a lot.


Eli

[Masterplumb]

Yeah your right Eli you never accused Cheney, Bush, or Condi of any wrong doing. But here are some of your quotes from these posts. If you are not making accusations about them doing something wrong, I guess it is me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder how the Bush family is making out during this crisis? I wonder how they will be affected by the opening of offshore drilling? I wonder how Mr. Cheney's "blind trusts" are fairing. And Condi's?"

No accusation here

"The fact that these folks and their families have or have had direct ties to companies who have made record profits during their time in office may just be coincidence, but it should not even be an issue because they should not be qualified to hold the office."

Nope, nothing here either

"Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Fact. He still knows the board, still presumably has friends in the upper management of that company. While he is in office he gave up his financial stake in that company. But a blind trust is also common."

Lets see, Cheney WAS the CEO gave up his shares, but he PRESUMABLY has friends on the board plus he MIGHT have a blind trust. Definitely no accusation here

"Condi was the head of Chevrons public policy department. She had an oil tanker named in her honor. Bush has oil interests. Bush Senior is on the board for the Carlyle Group, an international company that has interests in Saudi Arabia--including the Bin Ladens who have disowned Osama"

Rice WAS the head of Chevrons PUBLIC POLICY dept yeah and what has Chevron done wrong? Gee they made money, how dare those bastards make money. Holy crap Bush SR is on the board of the Carlyle Group ( a PRIVATE global investment group) http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html (http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html)
that son of a *****, how dare he be on a private GLOBAL investment group

"And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies."

Give me a break with the concrete ties cr@p


"Why did Cheney give up his personal finacial stake in the company if there is no influence his decisions could have on the company. The decision to go to war, the decisions to use the number of forces they did, the attempts to open offshore drilling all directly affect these companies bottom line in a huge way. Again, that doesn't have to be proven as the reason they made the decisions, only that there is a conflict of interest that could influence those decisions. Not only that, those industries can directly affect the country and the public interest"

Which one is it? Was he right or wrong for giving up his stake? I guess Im just dumb, because I can't make out your point here

If he gave up his shares why still accuse him of a conflict of interest?

Yeah I guess you were right and I was wrong, you are smarter then me I guess I just didnt see the whole picture, but thanks for clearing it all up. Maybe one day I'll see what a conflict of interest really is, I guess like Obama and Tony Rezko

[woodenstickers]

Yeah your right Eli you never accused Cheney, Bush, or Condi of any wrong doing. But here are some of your quotes from these posts. If you are not making accusations about them doing something wrong, I guess it is me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder how the Bush family is making out during this crisis? I wonder how they will be affected by the opening of offshore drilling? I wonder how Mr. Cheney's "blind trusts" are fairing. And Condi's?"

No accusation here

No accusation, sarcastically pointing out the fact that because there IS a conflict of interest, any actions or decisions made by these folks is suspect. Even if they are clean as a whistle, the conflict of interest makes them less than perfect for a position that demands 100% trust--and no, I do not.


"The fact that these folks and their families have or have had direct ties to companies who have made record profits during their time in office may just be coincidence, but it should not even be an issue because they should not be qualified to hold the office."

Nope, nothing here either

No accusation, pointing out a conflict of interest. That is a point of fact, not a point of opinion. You seem to have the two mixed up.


"Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Fact. He still knows the board, still presumably has friends in the upper management of that company. While he is in office he gave up his financial stake in that company. But a blind trust is also common."

Lets see, Cheney WAS the CEO gave up his shares, but he PRESUMABLY has friends on the board plus he MIGHT have a blind trust. Definitely no accusation here

No accusation. I was wrong about the blind trust in HIS case, but regardless, no accusation just pointing out a conflict of interest that makes him a poor choice to represent the public.

"Condi was the head of Chevrons public policy department. She had an oil tanker named in her honor. Bush has oil interests. Bush Senior is on the board for the Carlyle Group, an international company that has interests in Saudi Arabia--including the Bin Ladens who have disowned Osama"

Rice WAS the head of Chevrons PUBLIC POLICY dept yeah and what has Chevron done wrong? Gee they made money, how dare those bastards make money. Holy crap Bush SR is on the board of the Carlyle Group ( a PRIVATE global investment group) http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html (http://www.carlyle.com/Company/item1676.html)
that son of a *****, how dare he be on a private GLOBAL investment group

I am not saying that they shouldn't do exactly what they are doing. I am saying that we shouldn't elect their executives and relatives to positions that can POSSIBLY be compromised by that fact.

"And as for my questions as to how the current cabinet is making out financially during this crisis, if they have the appearance of possibly benefiting from anything within their control it is a conflict of interest. I really don't understand why that doesn't bother you. Seriously, why would these particular people with these concrete ties to companies that are benefiting so much from their policy be the best choice for office? I mean for the people, obviously they are the best choice for the companies."

Give me a break with the concrete ties cr@p


The concrete ties are that they are former members of those companies. That's it. That's all there needs to be for the conflict of interest to exist. It takes no further action on their part, just makes them poor choices to represent us because we can't be certain it won't affect their job.

"Why did Cheney give up his personal finacial stake in the company if there is no influence his decisions could have on the company. The decision to go to war, the decisions to use the number of forces they did, the attempts to open offshore drilling all directly affect these companies bottom line in a huge way. Again, that doesn't have to be proven as the reason they made the decisions, only that there is a conflict of interest that could influence those decisions. Not only that, those industries can directly affect the country and the public interest"

Which one is it? Was he right or wrong for giving up his stake? I guess Im just dumb, because I can't make out your point here

If he gave up his shares why still accuse him of a conflict of interest?

Yeah I guess you were right and I was wrong, you are smarter then me I guess I just didnt see the whole picture, but thanks for clearing it all up. Maybe one day I'll see what a conflict of interest really is, I guess like Obama and Tony Rezco

Yup, like Obama and Tony Rezco.


See how easy that is. I'm not going to pretend that the conflict of interest isn't there. Was there wrong doing? Irrelevant! The conflict of interest makes it suspect.

Now, I don't care if I am smarter than you or not, and frankly it doesn't interest me in the least. I am 100% sure there are many topics you can teach me about, and things you grasp that I don't, and skills and subjects you have mastered or can master better than I have or can. All I am saying is that in this ridiculously extended exchange I have not been able to make clear what a conflict of interest is and why it is important to not have them in the whitehouse. All the parts that you highlighted say exactly what I mean. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON FACTORS OTHER THAN WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DID OR DIDN'T IS IRRELEVANT. THAT IS WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS NOT AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE PERSON. IT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPROPRIETY THAT CAN MAKE THEIR DECISIONS SUSPECT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR DUTIES.

The conflict of interest is not something that they have done, it is something that exists outside of their actions. How else can I explain that? I am not telling you this because I want to be smarter than you, I am telling you this because you think I am saying something that I have not friggen said. Cheney does not have a blind trust, but that was his own decision because he didn't want to have the appearance of a personal financial conflict of interest. That was my mistake, I didn't know he gave that up until I looked it up, but it doesn't change anything. And if he kept it it wouldn't have changed anything either.

As for Obama, eff him! I am not supporting him. Finally you hit something that I agree he deserves scrutiny on.

Now, back to oil. Any reason you think we should have oil executives appointed to office in the whitehouse? Any reason that might not be good? Any chance it may play a factor in what we are being told about how important drilling is? Can anyone tell me how drilling will help us besides those who have $ to be gained? I see the benifit in the fact that it is an industry that can be profitable. I have yet to hear anything else concrete beyond very broad strokes about how we need to get off foreign oil, we need to bring down prices and we need to have our own reserves available. Nobody has said how that will come to pass by drilling.

Eli

[threecreeks3]

Well lets see think of drilling like planting Orange trees.If theres more trees theres more oranges which equally lower prices for oranges ...same with oil.Now if theres way too many trees the price drops drastically and some growers will switch to another crop.That won't happen with oil wells because of the costs involved are extremely higher then planting a tree.
Also with so much money now going out of the country it'd be very nice if more of that stayed here,besides the fed gets money off oil produced here.
As for who gains the most on oil/fuel profits ..look into just how much tax is charged the oil companies, plus the obvious taxes too on every drop of oil everyone buys.All the taxes hidden,ie corp taxes,plus the road taxes sales taxes etc are much more then the oil companies manage to keep...that can be found on line with some searching.Don't blame the "big" oil companies blame the exporting countries for being big oil,the opec countries ARE the big oil companies now.A publically owned company has a requirement to return the highest and best profit to its shareholders so blaming them just doesn't make a lot of sense.Equate that to a personal savings account...no one will invest in a savings account at 1% when the bank across the street pays 5%.
As for having an executive from any corporation,not just oil, in office well I guess some would prefer the janitor of a big company in a political office instead.Some people are meant to lead others to follow thats just the pecking order of life.Besides just how many poor retired politicians are out there,I can't think of any.Clinton certainly has extremely much more wealth now then when he took office.Those sponsored speaking engagements pay pretty well for an ex pres.And guess who pays that? Generally some big corp.Simple politics and politicians aren't clean and pure in the USA or any country.Palms are greased for later payments thats just how it is.
Personally I hope they drill a whole lot more in better lease areas.More renewable energy too in every form wind,solar,geothermal.wave,whatever.I personally also feel that oil should only be used for transportation needs and lubricants not used to fuel a plant to produce electricity ,coal can be used for that,if it must be a fossil fuel, and its emissions cleaned up,,btw look it up.. coal is bringing record profits now and theres a bit of a supply shortage right now in the world.The USA has a lot of coal.Along with the electric cars out and coming out continue hard research into other transport fuels.
Its too bad so many are against nuclear plants as if there was some standard design made ,that could be copied many times exactly, the price of the plants would drop too.I'd like to see them built on huge barges that can float and be towed anywhere in the world.Then theres extremely little worry about earthquake faults,perhaps a tsunami threat,they would have the cooling water needed all around them and once beyond useful life span towed to a site to be dismantled.And geez fully reprocess the fuel for them as much as possible as is done in other countries.One could be built in Mississippi and towed to Hong Kong and be plugged into the grid ready to run.Basically huge portable generators.I have no doubt if you can build a plant with a 50 year life span you can build a barge that will last longer.A nuke sub or aircraft carrier works well so could a barge.As a side benefit its waste heat could make fresh water for whatever area its parked at.These wouldn't have to be truelly huge in size either.If it needed serious repair tow in another and tow it to a repair facility.
Sam

[Masterplumb]

Yup, like Obama and Tony Rezco.


See how easy that is. I'm not going to pretend that the conflict of interest isn't there. Was there wrong doing? Irrelevant! The conflict of interest makes it suspect.

Now, I don't care if I am smarter than you or not, and frankly it doesn't interest me in the least. I am 100% sure there are many topics you can teach me about, and things you grasp that I don't, and skills and subjects you have mastered or can master better than I have or can. All I am saying is that in this ridiculously extended exchange I have not been able to make clear what a conflict of interest is and why it is important to not have them in the whitehouse. All the parts that you highlighted say exactly what I mean. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON FACTORS OTHER THAN WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DID OR DIDN'T IS IRRELEVANT. THAT IS WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS NOT AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE PERSON. IT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPROPRIETY THAT CAN MAKE THEIR DECISIONS SUSPECT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR DUTIES.

The conflict of interest is not something that they have done, it is something that exists outside of their actions. How else can I explain that? I am not telling you this because I want to be smarter than you, I am telling you this because you think I am saying something that I have not friggen said. Cheney does not have a blind trust, but that was his own decision because he didn't want to have the appearance of a personal financial conflict of interest. That was my mistake, I didn't know he gave that up until I looked it up, but it doesn't change anything. And if he kept it it wouldn't have changed anything either.

As for Obama, eff him! I am not supporting him. Finally you hit something that I agree he deserves scrutiny on.

Now, back to oil. Any reason you think we should have oil executives appointed to office in the whitehouse? Any reason that might not be good? Any chance it may play a factor in what we are being told about how important drilling is? Can anyone tell me how drilling will help us besides those who have $ to be gained? I see the benifit in the fact that it is an industry that can be profitable. I have yet to hear anything else concrete beyond very broad strokes about how we need to get off foreign oil, we need to bring down prices and we need to have our own reserves available. Nobody has said how that will come to pass by drilling.

Eli

There's only one of us who is missing the point here. I know the difference between a conflict of interest and an accusation.

[ToUtahNow]

I don't care to get into the debate you two are having as I just don't have the time or the desire right now. However, keep in mind the more successful a person becomes the more connections he ends up having. If you really want to vote for someone who has zero conflicts I suggest you find someone who has been an absolute failure in life.

Mark

[Frankiarmz]

I don't believe it's possible to reach a position such as President without having made strong ties to powerful people and corporations which would somehow constitute a conflict of interest at some point. Bush and Cheny clearly have their histories of powerful friends and business associates and Obama could not have gone through the system unscathed. I also find the tv news media comical when switching between fox news and msnbc, they each favor different candidates and twist their reporting of events. How can either candidate deny their desire for political elevation? I expect that anyone running for office wants to win. My biggest concerns are how poorly both parties have ruled the country, and what to expect from our new President. You guys are smart, tell me is it remotely possible to do what is in the best interest of the American public of all income levels without showing favoritism? Can the country be governed in the areas of energy, transportation, education and so forth without benefitting some and burdening others? Can we accurately say we have a people's President when these candidates have almost nothing in common with most Americans?

[woodenstickers]

I don't care to get into the debate you two are having as I just don't have the time or the desire right now. However, keep in mind the more successful a person becomes the more connections he ends up having. If you really want to vote for someone who has zero conflicts I suggest you find someone who has been an absolute failure in life.

Mark

Big difference between zero conflicts of interest and working for a a company that has the potential to be so influential or influenced by the most important political decisions of the whitehouse.

The absolutes don't work for me or on me gentlemen. I am tired of defending points of view that I have not given and do not hold. I have spent more time on here explaining that than I have talking about the question that I asked. It is a lot easier to dumb down my opinion until you can reject it out of hand, but it doesn't wash.

No, I do not expect everyone in office to be squeeky clean. No I do not think that politicians should not or won't or haven't used their connections to their advantage after they leave office. No I don't think a janitor should be the president. No I don't have a theory that Cheney is a shill who was planted to start a war for profit. I do think that oil companies should try to make a profit. I do think that it Bush Sr. working for Carlyle is perfectly legal and acceptable. What isn't acceptable is for people connected to them to be in the whitehouse.

Again, and it can be ignored for the twentieth time here because there is no good response, that people who worked for industries who spend millions and millions trying to influence government with lobbies, who are at the very heart of the biggest debates and problems that the country is facing, who have the very most to gain or lose from the political decisions being made are not the best choice for the job--at least not for the publics best interest. Yes, they are powerful successful men and women. Agreed they are capable of working in the private sector and making their companies a lot of profit. Working for a corporations interest and public interest are two very different things. You can pretend I am naive all you want, but until you address that fact it may be you who owns that.

Over and over I hear about how oil companies are supposed to try and make profits. How Halliburton is a private company. How Carlyle is doing what they are supposed to be doing by making money. Now, I ask very effin simply, are the people who worked in these industries with these goals or have family members who still do the best choice to protect the PEOPLES interests? I don't care if you think that implies smoke filled rooms. I don't care if you want to say that is an accusation. It is a question. There are over 300,000,000 people in the country. Everyone else is a janitor?



Eli

[Masterplumb]

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Should he not have been allowed in office because it is a conflict of interest with the peanut industry?


Harry Truman owned a haberdashery so I guess there was a conflict of interest in the button,ribbon and hat industry.:happydance:

[Frankiarmz]

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Should he not have been allowed in office because it is a conflict of interest with the peanut industry?


Harry Truman owned a haberdashery so I guess there was a conflict of interest in the button,ribbon and hat industry.:happydance:

Problem with your line of thinking is that neither of those industries involve a commodity that is essential to our lives. No other commodity will spark wars which many Americans believe is the true reason we are in iraq. Personally I don't see why we are not benefitting with cheap oil in return for the money spent and lives lost on our end? President Bush has to go there under the cover of night and that moron leader with the cheap suit from iran gets the red carpet treatment, what the hell is that all about?

[Masterplumb]

Problem with your line of thinking is that neither of those industries involve a commodity that is essential to our lives. No other commodity will spark wars which many Americans believe is the true reason we are in iraq. Personally I don't see why we are not benefitting with cheap oil in return for the money spent and lives lost on our end? President Bush has to go there under the cover of night and that moron leader with the cheap suit from iran gets the red carpet treatment, what the hell is that all about?

It was a joke Franki, do you really think that I thought we can equate a haberdasher with the oil industry?

[Frankiarmz]

It was a joke Franki, do you really think that I thought we can equate a haberdasher with the oil industry?

I'm having a hard time these days figuring out my own thoughts, so if I missed the humor sorry. Doctor upped my blood pressure medicine and I'm beat. Your post did give me a chance to insult that little bum from iran, but he still gets more respect in iraq than our President which bothers me. I've had to explain my attempts a humor more than once on this forum, I guess some things get lost through the Internet. Good night, I have to rest.