Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on June 08, 2008, 09:22:48 AM

Title: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: headhuntersix on June 08, 2008, 09:22:48 AM
Here's change u can believe in..but Comrade Obama won't do it.

At $130 a barrel, the real,hiddencost of the liberals' refusal to open up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)and the oil resources off our coasts is 10 million jobs.

Ten million jobs for middle-class,working-class Americansthat are being "outsourced" to OPEC daily, evenas the Senate debates bizarrely complex "carbon cap and trade"legislationthat wouldcharge American businesses (most of them) that produce carbon emissions for the right to stay in business; then let those that reduce their carbon emissions sell or "trade" their carbon credits to other businesses that need to grow but will use more energy in the process. The effect of this fiasco will be to impose a new tax on all businesses andon allbusiness growth, which will stunt business growth, economic growth, personal income growth, job growth,and tax receipts.

It's intended to fix the biggest non-problem in history, human-induced global warming - the fraud that has made Al Gore a centimillionaire.If we look at the real climate data, the long term temperature trends show us that the climate is 0.4 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago, and 3 degrees cooler than 8,000 years ago (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/).The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction charts the global temperature falling 0.4 degrees from 1988 to 1992, then rising 0.8 degrees from 1992 to peak in1998, then falling 0.7 degrees by January 2008.

The climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate. It's not our fault, and we can't stop it.

But I digress.

Currently, the U.S. imports roughly 25% of its oil, 5.4 million barrels a day, from OPEC, mostly fromSaudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria. At $130 a barrel, we are exporting over$700 million dollars a day to OPEC. $1.4 billion every two days. $256 billion a year.That's more than one-third of the US trade deficit of $720 billion. And that's why the value of the US dollar is falling.Not the only reason, but a big reason.

For 20 years, environmentalists, Democrats, and a few misguided Republicans have been busy keeping Big Oil out of ANWR and out of the oil fields on the Coastal Shelves, where there are an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat 60 million American homes for a century, and 115 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace 100% of the oil we now buy from OPEC for 21 years. At $130 a barrel,that would cut out trade deficit by $5.4 trillion over 21 years.

Yes, $5.4 trillion, which is enough to pay the entire federal budget for nearly two years.

Critics say that opening up 2,000 acres of the 19,049,236 acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil production would do little to bring down the price of gas, and that may be so. But it would add jobs by the millions, to the U.S. economy. With an estimated 10 billion barrels, ANWR could produce 1 million barrels a day for 30 years.At $130 a barrel, that's $130 million a day. That's $47 billion a year.

A million dollars creates 40 jobs at an average pay of$50,000 a year.$130 million creates 5,200 jobs at $50,000 a year.$47 billion creates1,880,000 new jobs for American workers at $50,000 a year.At current oil prices,by keeping ANWRoff limits, Democrats reduce employment for the middle-class, working-class Americans they pretend to care about by 1,880,000 jobs. And that's enough jobs to cut the unemployment rate from 5% to 4%.

But what if we open up the Coastal Shelves for oil production, too?And produce 5.4 million barrels a day, to replace all the oil we buy from OPEC?

That would re-invest the $256 billion a year we now deport to OPEC back into the U.S. economy. And that would fund 10,152,000 new jobs for working-class Americans, jobsthat pay an average of $50,000 a year.And that's enough new jobs to reduce the unemployment rate, in theory, from 5% to 0%.Zero. And that is the high cost of keeping ANWR "pristine."We can lay the blame for 100% of America's unemployment at the feet of the Democrats, liberal Republicans and environmentalists who keep ANWR and the coastal oil reserves off limits.

Put another way, every year that we continue buying 5.4 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC, we "outsource" more than ten million American jobs to OPEC. If politicians really cared about working-class Americans, they would be rushing to open up ANWR and other oil and gas reserves on federal lands as quickly as possible to create ten million new jobs, revalue the falling dollar, stimulate the economy, and write a declaration of independence from OPEC.

But, they don't.

Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: Deedee on June 08, 2008, 10:04:05 AM
Lol at the figures cited in that article.  It's been estimated by righties and lefties alike that there app. 10 billion barrels of extractable oil, or between 6 and 16 depending on whose study you prefer.

The reason drilling hasn't been pushed through yet, is because that's barely a scratch to relieve a tickle, and it hasn't been worth it so far to despoil the refuge. 

John McCain voted against drilling in 2005... do you think he's changed his mind? Possibly.

I thought securing Iraq was supposed to take care of all the oil probs?  ???
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: OzmO on June 08, 2008, 10:06:36 AM
More FEAR SPIN.

The republican have had control of congress and the presidency for 6 years.   They didn't so shit about Alaska then, so don't blame the dems because your repubs are at fault too.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 240 is Back on June 08, 2008, 10:09:10 AM
More FEAR SPIN.

The republican have had control of congress and the presidency for 6 years.   They didn't so shit about Alaska then, so don't blame the dems because your repubs are at fault too.

JoeLocal blames the "granolas", as Rush calls them.

It seems fifty hippies in flip-flops have prevented Bush from touching Alaskan oil.  it has nothing to do with controlling supply to make the companies rich, as analysts and common sense show.  Nope, bush and the repub congress were handily defeated by Granolas with no voting power.

Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: Deedee on June 08, 2008, 10:27:58 AM
JoeLocal blames the "granolas", as Rush calls them.

It seems fifty hippies in flip-flops have prevented Bush from touching Alaskan oil.  it has nothing to do with controlling supply to make the companies rich, as analysts and common sense show.  Nope, bush and the repub congress were handily defeated by Granolas with no voting power.



What a shocking and unique perspective!  :o

Besides, what are people bitching about.  It got voted on and pushed through this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/washington/26energy.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212945606-E/waublHzr7rQZ/CzQOVYg&oref=slogin
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 240 is Back on June 08, 2008, 10:47:49 AM
Besides, what are people bitching about.  It got voted on and pushed through this time.

The House has passed it a dozen times.  it never makes it any further, every time.  A republican Senate killed this bill for 6 straight years.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: calmus on June 08, 2008, 11:56:50 AM


People are suffering, no doubt; I'd support income tax credits for gas purchases people who make less than $60 k/yr. 
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: bigdumbbell on June 08, 2008, 12:38:18 PM

People are suffering, no doubt; I'd support income tax credits for gas purchases people who make less than $60 k/yr. 

great and what about the people who bike, walk, car pool, vespa and take mass transit?  what credits do these folks get?  what about the obama supporters who refuse to get jobs?  do they get tax breaks for not leaving the house and staying in a watching oprah and dr phil everyday?
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: calmus on June 08, 2008, 12:49:53 PM
great and what about the people who bike, walk, car pool, vespa and take mass transit?  what credits do these folks get?  what about the obama supporters who refuse to get jobs?  do they get tax breaks for not leaving the house and staying in a watching oprah and dr phil everyday?

A lot of our country is not designed in a way that allows people to economize by using mass transit, etc. I guess we could just say, you should have thought about it before you bought your big SUV. but I believe govt is also partially responsible. It's not the fairest solution by any means, but I imagine things are getting pretty ridiculous for some people.

If people don't buy gas, they don't get the credit. Just like everything else, save your receipts. 

Tax the oil cos, give those who are struggling credits. It will speed the move away from oil. 
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: War-Horse on June 08, 2008, 01:06:23 PM
Im with dee dee on this.   Where the hell is our iraqi oil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:(

Iraq has 30 billion dollars they havent even touched and america is going into the shitter.  Once again HH6 is missing the forest because of the trees.........
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: headhuntersix on June 08, 2008, 03:26:01 PM
U know full well that we haven't built a refinery in 30 years...dipshit governors like Sebelius in kansas block both a new refinery and a coal plant...jobs and gas..but shitcanned by a dem....the more we drill in our own backyard the better.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 24KT on June 08, 2008, 03:47:33 PM
ANWR will not even begin to make a dent. ANWR will produce 1 million barrels a day at best.
If you think that will put downward pressure on domestic oil prices, you are greatly mistaken.

If anything, drilling in Alaska will keep the prices up. American oil workers will not work for a bowl of rice a day.
They need to be paid real wages. the only way that's going to happen is to keep the price of oil high.
The solution is not to drill ANWR, but to reduce domestic fuel consumption, and a mere increase of 3 or 4 miles per gallon would reduce domestic oil consumption by 1 million barrels of oil per day.

WooHoo! On a side note, the skies have opened up here and it is just pouring!!!
I'm so happy I'm about to go outside to sing in the rain. It's been a scorching 32 degrees C (96 degrees F)
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 24KT on June 08, 2008, 03:49:27 PM
HH6, if you're really concerned about 10 million jobs, maybe you ought to lobby congress to re-visit NAFTA
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 240 is Back on June 08, 2008, 03:49:51 PM
American oil workers will not work for a bowl of rice a day.

In 2008, no, they won't.

In 2010, you bet your ass we'll take the rice.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: shootfighter1 on June 09, 2008, 08:30:01 AM
Guys, reducing individual consumption is fine but the practicality only goes so far, plus it has no effect on businesses, shipping and trucking.  Every business is affected by the rising oil prices.  We cannot ship and receive less.  Cost of all materials are rising (as the dollar is falling).  This problem is not going away, even if we 'drive less'.  There is new demand worldwide.  The only permanent solution is alternative fuels.

In the meantime, there are plenty of experts that state drilling in Alaska and costal regions WILL make a significant difference, stimulate our economy, and provide more jobs.  It doesn't matter who's fault this has been in the past, the point is we need to increase homeland drilling and increase nuclear energy while investing in alternative fuels.

Tax credits for a certain income class is a horrible idea...another way to punish the upper middle class and treat people unfairly.  Plus it doesn't affect the real issue of rising costs for all businesses.  We need to increase supply, force car manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency, and invest in alternative energies.  Those are the real solutions.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: headhuntersix on June 09, 2008, 08:36:37 AM
Besides we use oil for more then just gas. I like the idea of Nuke plants. I grew up 6 miles from one...never had much of a problem. Every drop helps. Kanasa just shitcanned a ton of jobs over blocking those two plants.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: Deedee on June 09, 2008, 02:32:56 PM
The House has passed it a dozen times.  it never makes it any further, every time.  A republican Senate killed this bill for 6 straight years.

Wasn't aware of that, but makes sense, since it isn't all that much oil to kill a reserve over. Still find the idea funny that 10 billion barrels of oil translates into 10 million jobs.  :D

Im with dee dee on this.   Where the hell is our iraqi oil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:(


I was being facetious. I think the point for the war was to keep oil off market. 

Not directed at you, but I think it was Neurotoxin who said it in another thread, the price of oil doesn't really have anything to do with supply. All the drilling an Alaska won't change anything.  Very interesting article.

Oil price mocks fuel realities
By F William Engdahl

As business and consumers consider the implications for them of crude oil selling at US$130-plus per barrel, they should bear in mind that, at a conservative calculation, at least 60% of that price comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York Nymex futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or over-the-counter trading to avoid scrutiny (see Speculators knock OPEC off oil-price perch, Asia Times Online, May 6, 2008).

US margin rules of the government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex by paying only 6% of the value of the contract. At the present price of around $130 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120.

This extreme "leverage" of 16 to one helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in subprime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.

The hoax of "peak oil" - namely the argument that oil production has hit the point where more than half all reserves have been used and the world is on the downslope of oil at cheap price and abundant quantity - has enabled this costly fraud to continue since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the help of key banks, oil traders and big oil majors.

Washington is trying to shift blame, as always, to Arab oil producers and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The problem is not a lack of crude oil supply. In fact, the world is in over-supply now. Yet the price climbs relentlessly higher. Why? The answer lies in what are clearly deliberate US government policies that permit the unbridled oil price manipulations.

World oil demand flat, prices boom
The chief market strategist for one of the world's leading oil industry banks, David Kelly, of JP Morgan Funds, recently admitted something telling to the Washington Post: "One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong."


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE24Dj02.html

For people who prefer Businessweek... same message.

The Reason for High Oil Prices
It's not a supply crisis that explains the sharp spike in oil prices. It's unregulated commodities markets and greed

by Ed Wallace


"One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong." —David Kelly, chief market strategist, J.P. Morgan Funds; The Washington Post, May 4, 2008

"...There is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased [oil] prices." —U.S. Senate Staff Report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, June 27, 2006 


http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2008/bw20080513_720178.htm
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: shootfighter1 on June 09, 2008, 02:42:31 PM
Great, here we go again with the country's leading experts completely disagreeing...meanwhile nothing substantial is done to fix the problem.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: War-Horse on June 09, 2008, 02:51:31 PM
thanks dee.   I knew speculaton was a factor. But i also thought that demands were unusually high...maybe thats not so true.   That means greed is the primary factor and that pisses me off...
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 24KT on June 09, 2008, 03:08:08 PM
thanks dee.   I knew speculaton was a factor. But i also thought that demands were unusually high...maybe thats not so true.   That means greed is the primary factor and that pisses me off...

It's like the internet bubble which many of you are too young to remember.

Any company that had a .com tacked onto the end of it's name saw major capital poured in, ...until the bubble burst.

Then, there was the real estate bubble, ...we saw those prices skyrocket as people re-fi'ed, ...then it burst.

Now we have the energy bubble. Alot of people are going to long, when all the big boys short, and we'll see another Enron. Don't think it's going to be happening anytime soon, ...especially with the increased demand from China & India, ...however, after the Olympics when China starts dealing with the devastation from the earthquake, ...we may see some very interesting things coming out of Asia.

Then too , ...there are the upcoming fall US elections. ...Stay Tuned folks...
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: drkaje on June 10, 2008, 04:06:29 PM
HH6, if you're really concerned about 10 million jobs, maybe you ought to lobby congress to re-visit NAFTA

It should have never been passed. That's Clinton's real legacy. NAFTA made goods got cheaper so no one could see the inflation.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 24KT on June 10, 2008, 04:10:26 PM
It should have never been passed. That's Clinton's real legacy. NAFTA made goods got cheaper so no one could see the inflation.

NAFTA went through under Reagan. That's why those damned "Irish eyes were smiling". {vomit}
That's why we Canadian's turfed the Conservatives out of office and kept them out of office for 13 years.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: a_joker10 on June 10, 2008, 05:08:49 PM

NAFTA is Clinton's baby.

You are thinking of Canada-US Free trade agreement.
The 88 election Turner vs Mulroney was based on Free Trade. Mulroney won.

Kim Campbell lost in 1993 because the conservative movement splintered after Charlottetown by the bloq and Reform leaving the conservatives. Chretien had literally no opposition for 3 elections, yet he didn't renegotiate NAFTA.

China's entrance into the WTO caused the problems not NAFTA. Most of the jobs that have been outsourced are going overseas not to Canada or Mexico.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: drkaje on June 10, 2008, 05:17:39 PM
NAFTA is Clinton's baby.

You are thinking of Canada-US Free trade agreement.
The 88 election Turner vs Mulroney was based on Free Trade. Mulroney won.

Kim Campbell lost in 1993 because the conservative movement splintered after Charlottetown by the bloq and Reform leaving the conservatives. Chretien had literally no opposition for 3 elections, yet he didn't renegotiate NAFTA.

China's entrance into the WTO caused the problems not NAFTA. Most of the jobs that have been outsourced are going overseas not to Canada or Mexico.

Funny, the same whores who won't end the Cuban embargo (Electoral votes in NJ, Fl Pa) stood up there as supported China getting into the WTO saying it would start democracy in China.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: 24KT on June 10, 2008, 05:23:59 PM
NAFTA is Clinton's baby.

You are thinking of Canada-US Free trade agreement.
The 88 election Turner vs Mulroney was based on Free Trade. Mulroney won.

Ya, you're right. I'm used to thinking of Canada & the US as North America.

Quote
Kim Campbell lost in 1993 because the conservative movement splintered after Charlottetown by the bloq and Reform leaving the conservatives. Chretien had literally no opposition for 3 elections, yet he didn't renegotiate NAFTA.

He didn't get rid of the gst either {sigh}

Quote
China's entrance into the WTO caused the problems not NAFTA.

China doesn't enter the WTO until 2012.

Quote
Most of the jobs that have been outsourced are going overseas not to Canada or Mexico.

As for no outsourcing to Mexico taking place, ...tell that to all the CAW members who negotiated a wage cut in exchange for GM keeping the Oshawa truck plant open (the most efficient truck plant in North America) ...only to be told 2 weeks after the agreement was ratified that GM changed their mind and would indeed be closing the Oshawa plant and 2,500 people would be out of a job, ...their jobs shipped off to Mexico.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: a_joker10 on June 11, 2008, 07:42:56 AM
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/china_e.htm
 China and the WTO

This page gathers key information on China's participation in the WTO. China has been a member of WTO since 11 December 2001.


The crappy part of China being a member of the WTO is that the both peg their currency on the US dollar and subsidize their fuel prices. This is what has given China an economic edge over the US. China needs to deregulate, however this would kill their economy. They know it and so does the rest of the world.
Title: Re: 10 Million Jobs: The High Cost of Saving ANWR
Post by: shootfighter1 on June 11, 2008, 09:34:13 AM
Interesting point to the people who don't think drilling will make a significant effect...looks like china, india and cuba will be drilling offshore near US waters.

Please urge your senators and representatives to allow us to drill.  We cannot handicap our citizens by refusing to tap our own resources (worse yet, we are allowing other countries to drill for our oil!)

"This is the irony of ironies," Charles T. Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said of Cuba's collaboration with China and India. "We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard."