Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 01:12:59 PM
If not...WHY NOT?!
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
Quote
House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries
Wednesday, Jun. 18 2008
Urgent: House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries
Per Pergram-Capitol Hill
House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that "there were multiple reasons for the postponement" including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling
1115
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markup
1119
I think there aren't enough votes for the Peterson amendment. It wasn't taken up (the Interior spending bill) because of the omnibus Appropriations bill. That's the main focus of the Appropriations Committee.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
1116
They (Republicans) have a one-trick pony approach.
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Resources Committee
1106
You cannot drill your way out of this.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming
1111
The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place.
Markey
1123
The governors of California and the governors of Florida are going to scream this is not the way to go.
Hinchey
1125
There are a lot of arrows in the President's quiver that he decided not use.
Hinchey
1128
What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations.
Emanuel
1131
It's like when I talk to my kids. Before we're going to talk about dessert, we've got to talk about what's on your plate. I hope I'm a little more successful with the oil industry than I am with my kids.
Markey7
1132
There are so many red herrings out there they might as well construct an aquarium.
From House Majoirity Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) when I asked him if the markup was cancelled because of potential Democratic defections on the Peterson amendment..
"No. The reason the markups aren't going through is because we're trying to get the supplemental on the floor tomorrow."
Andfrom a Senior Republican House Appropriations Aide..
"There were multiple reasons for the postponement including ongoing negotiations on the (supplemental) and a (Democratic) wish to avoid debate and votes on the energy amendments.
Wednesday, Jun. 18 2008
Urgent: House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries
Per Pergram-Capitol Hill
House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that "there were multiple reasons for the postponement" including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling
1115
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markup
1119
I think there aren't enough votes for the Peterson amendment. It wasn't taken up (the Interior spending bill) because of the omnibus Appropriations bill. That's the main focus of the Appropriations Committee.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
1116
They (Republicans) have a one-trick pony approach.
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Resources Committee
1106
You cannot drill your way out of this.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming
1111
The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place.
Markey
1123
The governors of California and the governors of Florida are going to scream this is not the way to go.
Hinchey
1125
There are a lot of arrows in the President's quiver that he decided not use.
Hinchey
1128
What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations.
Emanuel
1131
It's like when I talk to my kids. Before we're going to talk about dessert, we've got to talk about what's on your plate. I hope I'm a little more successful with the oil industry than I am with my kids.
Markey7
1132
There are so many red herrings out there they might as well construct an aquarium.
From House Majoirity Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) when I asked him if the markup was cancelled because of potential Democratic defections on the Peterson amendment..
"No. The reason the markups aren't going through is because we're trying to get the supplemental on the floor tomorrow."
Andfrom a Senior Republican House Appropriations Aide..
"There were multiple reasons for the postponement including ongoing negotiations on the (supplemental) and a (Democratic) wish to avoid debate and votes on the energy amendments.
Post by: Bigjake on June 19, 2008, 01:16:05 PM
Quote
What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations.
Emanuel
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 19, 2008, 01:35:13 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on June 19, 2008, 02:08:49 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on June 19, 2008, 03:24:19 PM
Quote
Can we call them traitors yet? Can we call them anti-American yet?
They've been called that since the 1930s. Hasn't quite exactly stopped them, you may've noticed.
Post by: lupinus on June 19, 2008, 03:53:10 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on June 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 19, 2008, 09:26:28 PM
Quote
The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place
And Clinton did what in his eight years?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 20, 2008, 05:57:14 AM
Do they realize that those corporations can sue for just compensation? This isn't a communist govt yet. The cost of those refineries is huge.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 05:59:05 AM
Quote from: 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
Post by: longeyes on June 20, 2008, 04:14:58 PM
Replace the power-hungry with a thousand points of light chosen at random.
Post by: Waitone on June 20, 2008, 05:18:28 PM
So spinelessrepublicans are beginning to move in a direction evidently supported by a large majority of voters. What's a democrat to do? Supporting drilling ain't one of them. Something else has to be done to demonstrate their seriousness about solving the energy crisis. Out comes nationalization of the oil industry. Starts off with Maxine Waters stumbling her way through an "off hand" statement. Snap polls taken later showed a degree of interest in the concept. After much noodling and planning and few well placed comments were made. No doubt polling is under way. If the results are positive we see more comments. Negative results will see a different emphasis.
Spinelessrepublicans are moving toward a pro-drilling platform. Democrats can not be seen as "me too, just slower" so they adopt a position consistent with their heritage--blatant socialism.
Energy sufficiency will be a (if not the) major issue in the campaign.
Post by: longeyes on June 20, 2008, 05:29:12 PM
And I expect to see Obama come out a propeller beanie at some point to show his support for wind (and hot air) power.
Post by: Firethorn on June 22, 2008, 06:23:39 AM
Replace the power-hungry with a thousand points of light chosen at random.
You know, that sounds like an amazingly good idea to me?
I'd prefer some requirements -
HS diploma or equivalent
Not currently in prison, jail, or under probation
Not currently on public assistance that exceeds their income
Post by: ilbob on June 22, 2008, 06:47:58 AM
the problem is we need MORE refineries, not government mismanagement of the few we have.
Post by: Fly320s on June 22, 2008, 07:02:17 AM
just how will nationalization of refineries improve anything?
Because under the Democrat Ideal Plan, the government will also control the price of the oil. And, most importantly, the price will be adjusted based on need and ability to pay. Of course, for a disadvantaged person, the price will be lower. To make that happen the obscenely rich (gross income greater than $80k/person) will pay a much, much higher price and will have a maximum fuel usage limit for each price tier. Buy more gas, pay at a greater rate.
As a reward for great service to
Post by: Manedwolf on June 22, 2008, 07:05:25 AM
just how will nationalization of refineries improve anything?
Because under the Democrat Ideal Plan, the government will also control the price of the oil. And, most importantly, the price will be adjusted based on need and ability to pay. Of course, for a disadvantaged person, the price will be lower. To make that happen the obscenely rich (gross income greater than $80k/person) will pay a much, much higher price and will have a maximum fuel usage limit for each price tier. Buy more gas, pay at a greater rate.
As a reward for great service to
And a large number of "disadvantaged" people will buy gas at the discounted rate, then, for a profit, resell it to other people for a higher rate but still one lower than the rate for "advantaged" people. This black market will result in not only further loss of revenue, but crime when deals go bad and people get shot over it.
You would think they'd take a lesson from how many times this has happened over and over and over again, but, no. The definition of madness is repeating the same action over and over with hopes of different results. It's also the definition of a democrat.
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 22, 2008, 07:07:23 AM
just how will nationalization of refineries improve anything?
Because under the Democrat Ideal Plan, the government will also control the price of the oil. And, most importantly, the price will be adjusted based on need and ability to pay. Of course, for a disadvantaged person, the price will be lower. To make that happen the obscenely rich (gross income greater than $80k/person) will pay a much, much higher price and will have a maximum fuel usage limit for each price tier. Buy more gas, pay at a greater rate.
As a reward for great service to
And a large number of "disadvantaged" people will buy gas at the discounted rate, then, for a profit, resell it to other people for a higher rate but still one lower than the rate for "advantaged" people. This black market will result in not only further loss of revenue, but crime when deals go bad and people get shot over it.
You would think they'd take a lesson from how many times this has happened over and over and over again, but, no. The definition of madness is repeating the same action over and over with hopes of different results. It's also the definition of a democrat.
How dare you use logic and reason, plus history, to refute the ideals of the
Post by: Tallpine on June 22, 2008, 11:38:42 AM
Something about global lukewarming or something like that ...
Post by: seeker_two on June 22, 2008, 01:22:52 PM
Post by: Scout26 on June 22, 2008, 02:22:44 PM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12532.0
Post by: RevDisk on June 22, 2008, 08:23:45 PM
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
Ah, no. Actually, please Gods no. I can think of few ways to cripple the US economy in a hurry.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 22, 2008, 11:59:20 PM
Time for Texas to re-examine that last document re-admitting us to the Union...
Or if that fails, do what Ellis Wyatt did .
Post by: Nitrogen on June 24, 2008, 04:11:15 AM
Just the kind of popular, yet stupid thing that will end up getting approved these days.
If we're going to go the government involvement route, lets just issue tax breaks or permit fast-tracking for refineries, instead.
Or better yet, tax penalties for localities that deny refineries that should be approved somehow.
I'd love to see the same for offshore drilling; California and Florida can subsidise the rest of our gas with tax penalties until they decide to allow offshore drilling.
Post by: Scout26 on June 24, 2008, 06:17:31 AM
Mmm. Price controls.
Just the kind of popular, yet stupid thing that will end up getting approved these days.
If we're going to go the government involvement route, lets just issue tax breaks or permit fast-tracking for refineries, instead.
Or better yet, tax penalties for localities that deny refineries that should be approved somehow.
I'd love to see the same for offshore drilling; California and Florida can subsidise the rest of our gas with tax penalties until they decide to allow offshore drilling.
Just the kind of popular, yet stupid thing that will end up getting approved these days.
If we're going to go the government involvement route, lets just issue tax breaks or permit fast-tracking for refineries, instead.
Or better yet, tax penalties for localities that deny refineries that should be approved somehow.
I'd love to see the same for offshore drilling; California and Florida can subsidise the rest of our gas with tax penalties until they decide to allow offshore drilling.
Nahh, we can't do either of those....they make sense...
Post by: seeker_two on June 24, 2008, 10:14:24 AM
I'd love to see the same for offshore drilling; California and Florida can subsidise the rest of our gas with tax penalties until they decide to allow offshore drilling.
And give Texas and Alaska tax breaks....we wanna drill on-shore, off-shore, and everywhere we can.....
Post by: Nitrogen on June 24, 2008, 11:17:21 AM
While I'm not a fan of the idea of massive drilling operations in ANWR, since the land is in Alaska, and they want to do it, lets let 'em.
Sure, we should do a bit to try adn protect wildlife in the area, but sorry, our economy and way of life is more important than antelope. I'm sure we can reach a reasonable balance.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 24, 2008, 01:11:58 PM