• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

The House Energized!!!

SouthernDemocrat said:
That all said, I don’t see how anyone could reasonably argue that the current high gas prices, high heating oil prices, and high natural gas prices are the fault of the Bush administration.
It's his fault partially because in his 4.5+ years he's not done anything to find or encourage alternative sources AND he's allowed oil companies to enjoy record profits!

My point is that prices are sky-high as are their profits. Doesn't this bother you? You, the average American now pays $40-$60 to fill up your car. If you do that 5 times a month that's about $250 per month, more than many car payments!

I am for HIGHER gas prices though higher government taxation because that will reduce demand and that will force oil companies to lower their prices while at the same time generating much needed revenue for our government. It will also focus carmakers on producing more fuel efficient cars as people will have a renewed interest in higher mileage to reduce their expenses.

What do you think?
 
26 X World Champs said:
Yet another post whose words are incredibly misinformed! Amazing!

Bush is clearly the WORST president in our history environmentally among other misdeeds that he does daily. Gas prices are at $3 per gallon while oil companies are earning record profits! If Bush hadn't fuc^ed up so many other things his record on the environment would be a bigger story, but since he's best known for starting wars and record deficit spending the environment gets little notice.

You want to do something about the lack of gasoline? Add a $1 federal tax and watch consumption go down. This simple solution is way too intelligent for Bush and Navy Pride.

This bill was so vile that the Bushies had to break Congressional rules to finally get it passed. A vote is supposed to be no longer than 5 minutes yet Republicans stalled for 40 minutes in order to get reps to change their votes! I remind you Navy Genius that Republicans have a clear majority in the House so this bill should have passed in 5 seconds, no less 5 minutes. It didn't because even Republicans knew that this was another cronyism bill that lines the oil companies pockets with even more money while further degenerating the environment AND does nothing to solve the real energy crisis, namely finding ALTERNATIVE energy sources!

You think's Bush is despised now for his energy policies and the cost of gas? Just wait two months when all of us have to pay unbelievable costs for heating this winter. It's going to upset millions and millions of Americans and it's going to negatively impact our economy, again, as businesses struggle to pay their heating bills. Translation? We're looking at the potential for serious inflation over the next 6 monthsand it will be Bush and his cronies fault!

You begin your post with "Yet another post whose words are incredibly misinformed! Amazing!" Really?

I watch C-Span in both the House and Senate and have the Speaker Pro Tem or Speaker say, "This will be a 15 minute vote." "This will be a 30 minute vote." I have seen the Speaker extend the time for a vote so members of both parties have time to get there to be on the record. I have seen the Democrats extend a vote to win approval in the first week of the Clinton Presidency.

When you say put a $1 tax on gasoline are you ready for the consequences? You are saying that it is either or both the President and the Oil Companies that are profiting here. Our energy costs have gone up by 67% over last year for gasoline as of the end of September and natural gas 91%. Home heating oil is going to be between that range and probably on the high side. You want to add 30% to the cost of gasoline to stop people from driving? Stop them from driving where? To work? There will be millions of people that will be unable to conserve any more than they already are so they will just have to pay your extra dollar. You are so short sighted but then I know you don't consider anything but a quick fix.

I don't know about you but I can afford a new or good used car any time I want. It wasn't always that way for me so I know what it means for those who have a truck they use for work or a SUV for their family transportation. Many people simply can't just buy a new vehicle. Consumption is already down for those who can't afford the price of gasoline and some are going into debt just trying to get to work. You must drive short distances but many Americans have to not only drive long distance but sit in traffic burning fuel without moving. Let's tax them?

A $1 tax on gasoline will hurt the economy for anyone that has to drive and it will then filter into anything you buy from groceries to a computer. I think you should rethink your tax or maybe you can explain how the people, including you and businesses would benefit from paying more.
:duel :cool:
 
26 X World Champs said:
It's his fault partially because in his 4.5+ years he's not done anything to find or encourage alternative sources AND he's allowed oil companies to enjoy record profits!

My point is that prices are sky-high as are their profits. Doesn't this bother you? You, the average American now pays $40-$60 to fill up your car. If you do that 5 times a month that's about $250 per month, more than many car payments!

I am for HIGHER gas prices though higher government taxation because that will reduce demand and that will force oil companies to lower their prices while at the same time generating much needed revenue for our government. It will also focus carmakers on producing more fuel efficient cars as people will have a renewed interest in higher mileage to reduce their expenses.

What do you think?
A dollar added to the current tax on a gallon of gas would lower consumption, and therefore price to an extent. But I would agree to this only if every cent of this dollar had to be spent on developement of alternative fuels and more efficient modes of transportation than we now use.

Number 15 in this thread contains text that the Democrats have been footdragging, and that if something had been done ten years ago, gas wouldn't cost $3.00 a gallon now. Haven't the Republicans controlled Congress for the last ten years?

Also, there is chatter about gouging and price control. We need to be very careful about anticapitalistic controls in this country. The price of gasoline can be lowered significantly if we drive less.

We are all irresponsible. When gas prices are low, we don't care how much of it our cars use, or how much we pollute. Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan didn't care either, when fuel was cheap. We don't fix the levee until the levee breaks. We don't secure the cockpits until the planes destroy our buildings. And we won't prepare for the next thing, but after it happens, boy will we get tough.

This is my first post here, and I like discussing politics. But it usually degrades into the Republican/Democrat thing. I vote Democrat more than Republican, but I am very disappointed in both parties. The Republicans are right that the Democrats are floating in the wind right now, without a clue. And the Democrats are right, too. Republicans have called them the Tax-and-Spend party for my whole life, but the Republicans have become the Grand Old Party of Borrow-and-Spend. They want to be re-elected, so they buy their votes with pork, just like their opponents.
 
A dollar added to the current tax on a gallon of gas would lower consumption, and therefore price to an extent. But I would agree to this only if every cent of this dollar had to be spent on developement of alternative fuels and more efficient modes of transportation than we now use.

Number 15 in this thread contains text that the Democrats have been footdragging, and that if something had been done ten years ago, gas wouldn't cost $3.00 a gallon now. Haven't the Republicans controlled Congress for the last ten years?

A dollar added to the price of gas hurts the poor in this country........Gas is already over $3.00 a gallon where I live.......I can afford it but a lot of poor people that need their cars to get to work van't........

Do you know what a filibuster is? Every time the Republicans tried to get and energy package through the evironmentalists screamed and since the dems are in their back pockets the bill was filibustered.........
 
Navy Pride said:
A dollar added to the price of gas hurts the poor in this country........Gas is already over $3.00 a gallon where I live.......I can afford it but a lot of poor people that need their cars to get to work van't........

Do you know what a filibuster is? Every time the Republicans tried to get and energy package through the evironmentalists screamed and since the dems are in their back pockets the bill was filibustered.........

I agree with you on the gas tax being a bad thing for the economy. Three dollars a gallon is enough of a reason for people to conserve gas.

For every dollar, environmentalist contribute to Democrats and pro-conservation Republicans and spend lobbying congress, the oil companies spend at least a hundred on conservative Republicans and lobbying congress. When it comes to energy policy, the Republicans are the problem.

Republican energy policy is simply this:

Billions of dollars in corporate welfare to oil companies.

Weakening as much as possible environmental regulations like the clean air act.

Nuclear Energy.

Drilling in ANWR.

and inorder to get moderate Republicans who are not owned by the oil companies to go for it, they include small investments in alternative energy.

While that goes a long way towards lining the pockets of the oil companies who author their energy policies, it doesn't do much in the way of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

However, I do agree with the Republicans on Nuclear energy.

Democratic Energy policy is this:

Increased CAFE Standards

Taking the money that would have been spent on corporate welfare for oil companies and investing it in Alternative energy and efficency.

Hands down, the Democrats have the better energy policy. However, their energy policy without including Nuclear is flawed as well.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree with you on the gas tax being a bad thing for the economy. Three dollars a gallon is enough of a reason for people to conserve gas.

For every dollar, environmentalist contribute to Democrats and pro-conservation Republicans and spend lobbying congress, the oil companies spend at least a hundred on conservative Republicans and lobbying congress. When it comes to energy policy, the Republicans are the problem.

Republican energy policy is simply this:

Billions of dollars in corporate welfare to oil companies.

Weakening as much as possible environmental regulations like the clean air act.

Nuclear Energy.

Drilling in ANWR.

and inorder to get moderate Republicans who are not owned by the oil companies to go for it, they include small investments in alternative energy.

While that goes a long way towards lining the pockets of the oil companies who author their energy policies, it doesn't do much in the way of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

However, I do agree with the Republicans on Nuclear energy.

Democratic Energy policy is this:

Increased CAFE Standards

Taking the money that would have been spent on corporate welfare for oil companies and investing it in Alternative energy and efficency.

Hands down, the Democrats have the better energy policy. However, their energy policy without including Nuclear is flawed as well.

When it comes to Republican Energy policies the energy bill just passed is a huge part of it and Hydrogen Cell proplelled vehicles which President bush has allocatted huge amounts of money for research.....Something Clinton never did......
 
My Opinion is that she should stop [-assing bills
and stop spending money

listen to greenspan
if they would of listened to him 6 years ago they would not of borrowed
6 trillion dollars beyond what is sustainable

trim govt. to the bone
erect a statue to sadam and tell the world america is wrong and we have things back under control

offer assylum to saddam and give the poor fool some money he has no more cusion
can he at least have the golden spurs that donald rummy dummy and Bush SR presented to him for being America 's alley in the iran /contra/russian operations
 
Well, I, as you can probably tell from the donkeys over on the left, am a Democrat.

But, from what Ive READ on here about this Bill, I say, Why not?
Of course, the only reason I say that is because of the mention of developing refineries in the Carolinas, since I live in North Carolina, this would eventually help to lower my cost of gas. :smile:

I'd like a Link to read the whole text of the bill if someone could provide that ,I would appretiate it.
 
gordontravels
I know most people look at a post and don't read it through because they only want to sieze on a point or two and then hurry on to their own argument

I see your posts and want to skim over it because the blue italic font makes my eyes bleed. But I suffer through it because you usually have something intelligent and well thought out to say.

I don't see how adding a gas tax will reduce gas consumption. Maybe in large cities where people have viable alternatives to car travel like taxi bus or subway. But in less densely populated areas people rely on their personal cars to get where they need to go. If gas prices go up they still need to get to the same places, and consume the same amount. With alternate fuel sources being developed the market is going to sort itself out eventually. I don't think adding artificial hikes to the price of gas is the right solution.
 
Any notion that the oil companies do not wish to build more refineries is just nonsense. Every year that is delayed, however, drives up the costs, and the regulatory process adds many millions of dollars to the cost of each one. So, they have not been cost effective to build.

I do agree with SD that we should look at nuclear along with all other alternate forms of energy, but I disagree that the GOP is dismantling all environmental protections. Some environmental regulations were unnecessaryand counterproductive. I think any good energy policy has to look at multiuse capabilities of our resources without doing damage to the environment or sullying the beauty that we all appreciate. We have the smarts and technology to do that.

I concur with Purplehaze that the neon blue font is difficult and painful to read. :smile:
 
AlbqOwl said:
Any notion that the oil companies do not wish to build more refineries is just nonsense. Every year that is delayed, however, drives up the costs, and the regulatory process adds many millions of dollars to the cost of each one. So, they have not been cost effective to build.

I do agree with SD that we should look at nuclear along with all other alternate forms of energy, but I disagree that the GOP is dismantling all environmental protections. Some environmental regulations were unnecessaryand counterproductive. I think any good energy policy has to look at multiuse capabilities of our resources without doing damage to the environment or sullying the beauty that we all appreciate. We have the smarts and technology to do that.

I concur with Purplehaze that the neon blue font is difficult and painful to read. :smile:

I present ANWAR as and example..........The democrats have always been against drilling there for oil because of the enviornment........ANWAR when compared to the size of Alaska is about the size of a football field....There would be very little invironmental impact there but since the dems are in the back pockets of the Environmentalists no drilling has ever been permitted..It has been estimated there is a 10 year supply of oil there (no one knows for sure).......If we had started drilling there 10 years ago the price of gasoline would not be what it is today......

I to am for finding alternate sources of energy............I want to see our dependence on Arab oil brought down to zero......
 
Navy Pride said:
I present ANWAR as and example..........The democrats have always been against drilling there for oil because of the enviornment........ANWAR when compared to the size of Alaska is about the size of a football field....There would be very little invironmental impact there but since the dems are in the back pockets of the Environmentalists no drilling has ever been permitted..It has been estimated there is a 10 year supply of oil there (no one knows for sure).......If we had started drilling there 10 years ago the price of gasoline would not be what it is today......

I to am for finding alternate sources of energy............I want to see our dependence on Arab oil brought down to zero......
And Conservatives aren't in the back pocket of the MUCH MUCH MUCH more Wealthy Oil Industry?
Who do you think has more money to lobby? Oil Companies making RECORD BREAKING PROFITS, or Environmental Organizations who run off of donations/fund raisers/ and other small amounts of money.
The reason ANWAR has not been drilled in, is not because of the Democrats being in the Environmentalists back pocket.
 
The reason ANWAR has not been drilled in, is not because of the Democrats being in the Environmentalists back pocket.

What was the reason then?:confused: Or were you to young for that too?:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
What was the reason then?:confused: Or were you to young for that too?:roll:
You missed the whole ****ing point of my post.
Im not saying I know the reason.
Im saying your reason is stupid.
If the Environmentalists have the Democrats in thier back pockets, that makes no difference, when the even RICHER oil Companies have the Republicans in thier back pockets.

That is what Im saying. Im stating that your ignorant attempt at actually debating instead of slinging names and insults is a failed, pathetic, attempt.
 
Caine said:
You missed the whole ****ing point of my post.
Im not saying I know the reason.
Im saying your reason is stupid.
If the Environmentalists have the Democrats in thier back pockets, that makes no difference, when the even RICHER oil Companies have the Republicans in thier back pockets.

That is what Im saying. Im stating that your ignorant attempt at actually debating instead of slinging names and insults is a failed, pathetic, attempt.

Well your saying Conservatives are a bunch of old rich cats.I am just proving you wrong.......

Oh and explain to me how republicans have oil companies in their back pockets......

If you going to make these outlandish statements explain them if you can.....
 
Caine said:
You missed the whole ****ing point of my post.
Im not saying I know the reason.
Im saying your reason is stupid.
If the Environmentalists have the Democrats in thier back pockets, that makes no difference, when the even RICHER oil Companies have the Republicans in thier back pockets.

That is what Im saying. Im stating that your ignorant attempt at actually debating instead of slinging names and insults is a failed, pathetic, attempt.

and you call others ignorant or stupid
considering your ignorant response, you may want to rethink that
While Oil lobbies may have more money, the environmentalists dont need tons of money
all the Environmentalists have to do is whisper lies and BS into some stupid bleeding heart liberal Reporters ear, and BAM it is front page on the NY Times

typical of the liberal mindset
all the criticism in the world, but no solutions
 
DeeJayH said:
and you call others ignorant or stupid
considering your ignorant response, you may want to rethink that
While Oil lobbies may have more money, the environmentalists dont need tons of money
all the Environmentalists have to do is whisper lies and BS into some stupid bleeding heart liberal Reporters ear, and BAM it is front page on the NY Times

typical of the liberal mindset
all the criticism in the world, but no solutions

Typical in that when they have lost the debate they attakc the messenger........Sad........
 
Navy Pride said:
A dollar added to the price of gas hurts the poor in this country........Gas is already over $3.00 a gallon where I live.......I can afford it but a lot of poor people that need their cars to get to work van't........

Do you know what a filibuster is? Every time the Republicans tried to get and energy package through the evironmentalists screamed and since the dems are in their back pockets the bill was filibustered.........

Yes, I know what a filibuster is. But there was an energy bill passed. You know about that, right? Since I am not yet well informed as to the detail of the text of this document, as I'm sure you are, please let me know when the environmentalists get to shut down all the refineries.

The important thing is that instead of offering up excuses for the party one prefers, we need to put pressure on all of our representatives to work toward some level of independence from oil supplied by OPEC.

Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned hydrogen power for cars. This may be feasible someday, but we have an excellent alternative right now-when buying your next car, please get a hybrid. This won't work for everyone-for example you won't be able to tow anything with a hybrid. However, for 90% of us, this is a smart, patriotic choice.
 
DeeJayH said:
and you call others ignorant or stupid
considering your ignorant response, you may want to rethink that
While Oil lobbies may have more money, the environmentalists dont need tons of money
all the Environmentalists have to do is whisper lies and BS into some stupid bleeding heart liberal Reporters ear, and BAM it is front page on the NY Times

typical of the liberal mindset
all the criticism in the world, but no solutions

Again, your a paranoid whiney little bitch.

The media covers a story. They cover a story that gets public attention. Public attention is then also brought to Sponsor Advertisements. This then allows them to get more money from sponsors. Thus making the Network more wealthy. Its a Capitalistic world.... they are only in it for the money after all.
 
tryreading said:
Yes, I know what a filibuster is. But there was an energy bill passed. You know about that, right? Since I am not yet well informed as to the detail of the text of this document, as I'm sure you are, please let me know when the environmentalists get to shut down all the refineries.

The important thing is that instead of offering up excuses for the party one prefers, we need to put pressure on all of our representatives to work toward some level of independence from oil supplied by OPEC.

Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned hydrogen power for cars. This may be feasible someday, but we have an excellent alternative right now-when buying your next car, please get a hybrid. This won't work for everyone-for example you won't be able to tow anything with a hybrid. However, for 90% of us, this is a smart, patriotic choice.
Conservative View: Hybrids are for Liberal ******s.
 
Caine said:
Conservative View: Hybrids are for Liberal ******s.

Not true...I myself have a big Pick Up truck but I have conservative friends who have small econmy cars..There you go again painting everyone with the same brush..........You need to stop that.........

Conservatives believe you should be able to drive what you want to drive.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Not true...I myself have a big Pick Up truck but I have conservative friends who have small econmy cars..There you go again painting everyone with the same brush..........You need to stop that.........

Conservatives believe you should be able to drive what you want to drive.....

You don't like being generalized do you?
Cause thats what you, (I mean you specifically Navy) do to liberals nearly every single post........So now that you don't like it... Stop doing it to liberals.
 
Caine said:
Again, your a paranoid whiney little bitch.

The media covers a story. They cover a story that gets public attention. Public attention is then also brought to Sponsor Advertisements. This then allows them to get more money from sponsors. Thus making the Network more wealthy. Its a Capitalistic world.... they are only in it for the money after all.


I want to ask you a question.....When you lose it why do you just call everyone names?

Well I am going down to my local watering hole and watch the football games......Take care my friend and try and calm down.You will bust a blood vessel........:lol:
 
Caine said:
Conservative View: Hybrids are for Liberal ******s.
Looks like you don't like Republicans or Democrats, judging by the text of your note, and the GOP thing. Also, I like ******s.
 
Some things I've learned here from both the left and right:

President Bush has spent 4 1/2 years doing nothing for our energy problems.

President Clinton spent 8 years doing nothing for our energy problems.

President Bush had asked for increased CAFE standards and President Clinton and President GHW Bush didn't.

The speed limits on our state and U.S. highways and interstates could be lowered and that would save fuel and provide funds from tickets (voluntary contributions by motorists) for both local and state governments. Neither the President nor Congress is talking about this.

The oil companies haven't built any new refineries for 29 years so they could wait 28 years to profit from a move like that. During that time the cost of petrol in Europe and the UK went from approx $.39 per gallon (USD) to over 5 to 6 USD per gallon. The cost of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. went from approx $.59 per gallon to a national average of less than $3.00.

Refinery capacity has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. Lack of refinery capacity or refineries shut down by storms cause the price of gasoline to go up.

Canadians think we're naive.

We are all misinformed at one time or another.

Democrats are better than Republicans.

Republicans are better than Democrats.

Republicans and Democrats suck when they only want to blame and not propose ideas.

We have the strongest economy in the world.

Our media is so negative they need psycho therappe.

We have an energy bill that is the most extensive in the last 25 years. It might help.

Having an energy bill that might help is better than having nothing.

The two party system partied by the Republicans and Democrats is not in our best interest.

I'm hungry.
:duel :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom