• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

As if big oil were not profitable enough

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lets not ignore this little aspect of the royalty give-ups...

partly because of added sweeteners approved during the Clinton administration
Same source as cited by thread starter.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm baffled as to how on earth you could attribute this to Bush.

As oldreliable pointed out, these royalties are the result of two things: Laws passed under Clinton, and lawsuits put forth by the oil companies. I'm failing to see what impact Bush had on either.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
I'm baffled as to how on earth you could attribute this to Bush.

As oldreliable pointed out, these royalties are the result of two things: Laws passed under Clinton, and lawsuits put forth by the oil companies. I'm failing to see what impact Bush had on either.
Simple:
1) State of the Union address 1/31/2006. "America is addicted to oil.... yada yada yada" After making a speech like that telling how the US needs to shift towards alternative fuels, rational individuals would expect that there would be strong measures to shift away from reliance on oil.
2) Creating the greatest deficit in the history of the US, royalties from oil drilling would be a good source to pay off that debt, yet what happens? Nope, we won't collect on that Royalty.

Since when did laws ever stop this adminstration from doing what it pleases? Particularily those laws passed under Democratic leaderships (ie FISA). If Bush Inc dosen't see anything wrong with it, then it's fairly reasonable to assume that they're pretty much in bed with big oil (ie $36 billion in profit for Exxon 2005).

Here same source
Mr. Bush and House Republicans are trying to kill a one-year, $5 billion windfall profits tax for oil companies that the Senate passed last fall."
"It was Congress's intent," Mr. Pombo said in an interview on Friday, "that if oil was at $10 a barrel, there should be royalty relief so companies could have some kind of incentive to invest capital. But at $70 a barrel, don't expect royalty relief."
Yet this administration is going head on to allow for royalty relief? If that doesn't spell "sleeping together" for you I don't know what will.
 
Last edited:

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Lets not ignore this little aspect of the royalty give-ups...

Same source as cited by thread starter.
This proves what and how?
Perhaps you'd like to read over the entire article first before getting gunny with partisan nonsense.
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jfuh said:
This proves what and how?
Perhaps you'd like to read over the entire article first before getting gunny with partisan nonsense.
I read the whole article. Just pointing out how it was interesting how you conviently ignored the parts that didn't quite fit with your preconception.

BTW, thats not partisan nonsense. I did not deny that the Bush admin has some culpability here, only that you didn't provide the whole story. In fact, when it comes to fiscal policy, you will find that I am as big a critic of the Bush admin as any poster here.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
I read the whole article. Just pointing out how it was interesting how you conviently ignored the parts that didn't quite fit with your preconception.

BTW, thats not partisan nonsense. I did not deny that the Bush admin has some culpability here, only that you didn't provide the whole story. In fact, when it comes to fiscal policy, you will find that I am as big a critic of the Bush admin as any poster here.
Simply I didn't see the need to draw out such. It simply does not change the basis of my argument.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jfuh said:
Simply I didn't see the need to draw out such. It simply does not change the basis of my argument.
Simply does reflect a certain partisan bent.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
I read the whole article. Just pointing out how it was interesting how you conviently ignored the parts that didn't quite fit with your preconception.

BTW, thats not partisan nonsense. I did not deny that the Bush admin has some culpability here, only that you didn't provide the whole story. In fact, when it comes to fiscal policy, you will find that I am as big a critic of the Bush admin as any poster here.
*seconded*
 
Top Bottom