Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NinjaBoot]

Really?  You mean the alternative, which the republicans are offering which amounts to doing something, is inherently more destructive to the economy then doing nothing? 

Man, I guess opening up the oil fields in and around America for drilling is evil, you know, creating all those jobs for people out of work and in need of jobs.  Creating all that wealth for the American government to tax is also evil!  Same with driving down the price of oil and energy. 

And this is where you prove you really have no idea what you're talking about.  Opening new oil fields is not the problem, neither is building guaranteed-to-spill pipelines right over America's largest water table.  Not to mention every realistic appreciation of the "jobs" created by such products, i.e. appreciations by people who aren't being paid to make it happen, put it at a couple thousand temporary positions maybe.

American oil production and number of functioning wells has been increasing every year since 2007.  American oil consumption has actually reduced a bit in the same time frame (mostly because people don't have enough money to do more driving than they absolutely need, and there's less shipping going on).  The inflated price of oil and gas is largely due to completely unregulated commodity speculation, driven into overdrive by automatic stock trading, which is in turn based on global insecurity about Europe's economy and the physical stability of the Middle East.  And if you're going to blame things like that on the American President, especially how Obama has reacted to these situations, you really are an ideologue.

Really, dude, you need to turn off the Fox News and Drudge Report, and get some actual information instead of good soundbites.

*Le sigh*

The more oil you drill for and produce in your own country, the less need for you to buy oil from foreign countries.  That means half of what you said would be irrelevant. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians. 

[RedKing]

NinjaBoot, I think it's sufficent to say that we live in alternate planes of reality. And I'm going to leave it at that, because we've been down this road before. Scroll up a few pages, or scroll through the umpteen hundred Progressive Rage pages. And because as I said just a handful of pages back, this thread isn't for arguing this kind of stupid bullshit. It's for discussing the election horserace. Period.

To that end, have some new poll data! It's crunchy and fresh from the poll fields of the Midwest...

National:
Gallup showing Santorum at +7

Michigan:
Detroit Free Press poll shows the state at Santorum +3, despite the Free Press's recent endorsement of Romney.

Pennsylvania:
For the first time, we're getting poll data on the GOP race in Santorum's home state. Not surprisingly, he's winning. What is surprising is how strongly he's winning, at a whopping +29 (45% to Romney's 16%). This is in a state where just six years ago, he got roundly thumped in his bid for re-election to the Senate.

Georgia:
In yet another "home state" poll, Gingrich is still clinging to hope in his home state of Georgia, riding at +5 in the Peach State according to Rasmussen. The bigger news is who he's fending off. Gingrich is at 33, followed by Santorum at 28, Romney at 20 and Ron Paul at 9.

[Aqizzar]

The more oil you drill for and produce in your own country, the less need for you to buy oil from foreign countries.  That means half of what you said would be irrelevant.

You're confusing production for price.  Producing more oil in the United States does not necessarily make oil cheaper, because there's this thing called the globe, and it has an economy.  When you grasp that, then you might think about scraping off that Drill Baby Drill bumpersticker.  Yes, I know it's catchy.

[RedKing]

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

Awww, but we love a good kerfluffle with the Russians! Really, most of what constitutes modern America derives from the great Cold Kerfluffle and kerfluffle-related activities.

[NinjaBoot]

And even then I'm pretty sure that's only federal income tax rates, isn't it? (Do you have a cite for that number, by the way? I've heard that 80% of statistics are made up, and another 10% are wrong!)

Dude, its over 9000%! 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

And on, I was wrong to assume that they didn't pay zero taxes! 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

And I don't see how Republicans or Tea Partiers are for "Destroying the economy" (aside from what you hear from leftist news outlets) when they are advocating for reigning in government spending.

Not Republicans as in your average Republican, who is probably gonna be pro-economy as a general rule, but Republican Politicians who see victory as more important than collateral damage. I guarantee there are at least SOME Republicans who sincerely hope the economy suddenly nosedives, at the very least (just as I'm sure some Democratic politicians hoped for the same during Bush's terms)

As opposed to the current president?  Again, he is not making a decision on the Keystone Pipeline until after the election because?  He wants the environmentalist vote.  Again, he is not making a decision on an economic issue that will positively affect the country, no matter how small, because he wants the environmentalist vote.  If you can argue otherwise, then please do so!  Its better then just saying the other party is doing it (how are they again?) and not bothering to address what the current president is already doing.

[Bauglir]

I argue that it will not positively affect the nation, and hope that his waiting to take action is because he intends not to support it, but doesn't want to give Republicans another thing to use against him (because of the general assumption among them that it's going to positively affect the nation). It's not so much about gaining the environmentalist vote, as it is denying the Republicans the ability to recruit on economic grounds that he believes are somewhere between mistaken and fraudulent.

Again, I hope. I fully expect to be proven wrong, but that's mostly because 9 times out of 10, anything I've said I hope for regarding the Obama administration has not been what they've done. Though that's massively better than anything I could expect from a Republican administration, and reflects more on the fact that I don't say anything at all about most things than it does on anything else.

[NinjaBoot]

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

"The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves"

[Criptfeind]

Those with weak hearts look away, as the hilarity may kill you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

And on, I was wrong to assume that they didn't pay zero taxes! 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

But like most statistics, it is often misunderstood -- and, in the case of those trying to stir political outrage, misrepresented.

For tax year 2010, roughly 45% of households, or about 69 million, will end up owing nothing in federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even end up getting paid money from the federal government.

That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

[NinjaBoot]

I argue that it will not positively affect the nation, and hope that his waiting to take action is because he intends not to support it, but doesn't want to give Republicans another thing to use against him (because of the general assumption among them that it's going to positively affect the nation).

Ok.

So you are basically saying that the issue is not the economic effect the Keystone Pipeline would have on the nation, rather, in a political sense, it negatively effects his reelection chances and him delaying his decision for political reasons is best for the nation?  I doubt that so I'll assume its because you are saying that the Keystone Pipeline's economic impact on the nation would pale in comparison to all the environmental issues it would create. 

It's not so much about gaining the environmentalist vote, as it is denying the Republicans the ability to recruit on economic grounds that he believes are somewhere between mistaken and fraudulent.

Ok, so it is purely for political reasons then.  Thank you for proving me right on that fact. 

With that out of the way, how are they mistaken and fraudulent for saying delaying the Keystone Pipeline is a negative thing?  Instead of selling our oil to our closet neighbor and ally, we are now having to resort to selling it to china.  Instead of ensuring whatever jobs and economic growth derives from this act, if he does approve it, he is instead saying his reelection campaign is more important than the health of the American economy? 

Again, I hope. I fully expect to be proven wrong, but that's mostly because 9 times out of 10, anything I've said I hope for regarding the Obama administration has not been what they've done. Though that's massively better than anything I could expect from a Republican administration, and reflects more on the fact that I don't say anything at all about most things than it does on anything else.

You mean Bush?  Come on, we all know which "Republican Administration" we are talking about, as the majority of us were too young to ever remember the Regan Administration. 

Ontopic, these issues (keystone pipeline and the economic effect of drilling for oil) are issues regarding the American Election because these regard issues that these Candidates will have to address.  Just because the media wants to focus on social issues all the time does not lessen these issues and their impact.

[NinjaBoot]

Those with weak hearts look away, as the hilarity may kill you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

And on, I was wrong to assume that they didn't pay zero taxes! 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

But like most statistics, it is often misunderstood -- and, in the case of those trying to stir political outrage, misrepresented.

For tax year 2010, roughly 45% of households, or about 69 million, will end up owing nothing in federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even end up getting paid money from the federal government.

That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

Why do you think I posted it?  I admitted I was wrong! 

[GlyphGryph]

They were probably confused. Reread exactly what you said you were wrong about.
I got it, but I was wondering if anyone else would take it as written.

[scriver]

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

"The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves"

Isn't that the bullshit that poisons the groundwater so much people can set their tap water on fire? And now threatens to poison the reservoir the whole of New York and New Jersey takes their water from? Yeah, avoiding that sounds really bad.

[mainiac]

It must be strange to live in a world where the need to transition from oil isn't obvious  But it comes down to culture war like it always done.  I was at a debate where the Democrat said that green energy was a good thing and the audience boo'd so loud you couldn't hear the end of his sentence.  These sounded like the sort of rage filled cat calls you'd expect if he said that he wanted to gay marry Osama.  The effects of this stupidity are going to be felt for decades as these idiots are preventing us from making extremely crucial investments in our future.  He wasn't even saying that we should be spending more money or we should do energy taxes or proposing a policy.  Just generally saying that green energy was good and they hated that very sentiment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Isn't that the bullshit that poisons the groundwater so much people can set their tap water on fire? And now threatens to poison the reservoir the whole of New York and New Jersey takes their water from? Yeah, avoiding that sounds really bad.

Hydrofracking, yes. The flaming tapwater is from methane getting into the aquifers, but there are other issues as well. Still, flaming tapwater. Doesn't get much more dramatic than that.