Cheap Oil Is An Economic Time Bomb For America!

[Flopper]

We can build much safer nuke plants than we did in the 60s and 70s.
And if it weren't for liberal whiners, we would. With zero CO2.
You'd think the warmers would climb on the nuke bandwagon.
Thorium reactors could save the ice that they love so much.

Let's try for a new oil refinery first....haven't had one approved in almost 40 years. Which is why the Keystone XL is needed now.

I must admit a preference for natural gas powered electric generation.

If we are going to have fossil fuel powered generating plants, natural gas is the best alternative. CO2 emissions are half that of coal fired generation and a third less than oil fired generation. Major pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are a small fraction of that produced by coal or oil.

I see the movement away from fossil fuels as a very long process taking at least a hundred years. It will probably take at least another 20 years are so to come up with an agreed upon viable plan and a method of financing it. The real answer for power generation needs to be a new technology such as fusion and who knows how long that's going to take. Even if we had practical fusion generation available today, it would probably take 50 years to replace all fossil fuel generation.

 

[SAYIT]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

 

[Flopper]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

Yes, good for American today, but not necessary good for America or the world in the future. So let's enjoy what we have today and let our despondence's worry about the world we leave them.

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole energy issue is simply spinning a wheel. While nuclear energy is efficient and cheap, most plants were given a 30 year lifespan....that's overdue so I guess nuclear will be abandoned in another 10-15 years. I've always thought ocean tides and river currents should have been exploited...tremendous amount of wasted energy in moving water.

It's already been demonstrated that these technologies kill tremendous quantities of ocean life.

Even without killing aquatic life taking energy from ocean would freeze Europe on the east coast and cause major detrimental effect to half the planet on the west coast.

You have evidence to back that up? Or more computer models?

The Gulf Stream is the only reason western Europe is habitable. (I realize that FL is unusual in teaching this in grammar school but I got the same lessons in MD, VA and RI as well so I am just reviewing this in case you forgot.)

For example the majority of Canadians live south of England, look on a world map and see. Removing heat energy or reducing kinetic energy to slow the Gulf Stream so more heat will be lost to radiation will cool Western Europe including the port of Murmansk in northern Russia.

As to the Pacific again look at a world map. Lots of exposure to the Antarctic Ocean close to none with the Arctic Ocean creating the driest deserts in the world south of the equator. (Most of the Sahara is well watered pastureland by Aussie standards much less Chilean.) Changing the difference in temperature between the Pacific north and south of the equator will change the track of cyclonic activity.

If this is what wasn't obvious to you and you don't live in the hurricane zone a quick lesson. Tiny differences in temperatures off shore can make a huge difference in damage totals as with Sandy. Changing track has history changing effects as with the kamikazi that destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet or the hurricane that destroyed the armada.

But seriously the above is not taught where you come from?

I pay very little attention to those that think man is capable of changing global temperature to any measurable degree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does GWB carry responsibility for money spent under a budget he did not sign?

it was his budget that Congress was following, and his fiscal responsibility.....

A Dem congress passed it... a Dem President signs it... and it's GWB's fault?
I don't understand why you don't understand that you've lost this argument.

because I can THINK, I know i haven't lost the argument..

You have - you simply refuse to admit it to yourself.
Bush did not pass the budget thru Congress-- the Dems did.
Bush didn't sign the budget into law - Obama did.
Only a true partisan bigot could then deduce that GWB is to blame for the FY2009 deficit.

 

[Care4all]

How does GWB carry responsibility for money spent under a budget he did not sign?

it was his budget that Congress was following, and his fiscal responsibility.....

A Dem congress passed it... a Dem President signs it... and it's GWB's fault?
I don't understand why you don't understand that you've lost this argument.

because I can THINK, I know i haven't lost the argument..

You have - you simply refuse to admit it to yourself.
Bush did not pass the budget thru Congress-- the Dems did.
Bush didn't sign the budget into law - Obama did.
Only a true partisan bigot could then deduce that GWB is to blame for the FY2009 deficit.

if Bush's Budget had been passed and followed to the tee, in January 09, when the GAO/CBO scored his/Bush's budget proposal delivered to congress for fiscal 09, their estimate was that Bush's budget proposal would give our Nation OVER a TRILLION dollar deficit.

Let that sink in.

HOW did our government pay it's bills for fiscal 2009, in Oct, Nov, Dec, and Jan and HOW did our government bail out the banks, insurance firms, auto industry and wall street in fiscal 2009, without President Bush signing the appropriation bills?

you are just not thinking straight M14

Congress passed only 1 of obama's budgets for the past 6 years...DOES THAT MEAN that NONE of the fiscal year spending will be attributed to his presidency? NO, of course not....

AND AGAIN you can't attribute only 7 fiscal years of responsibility for Bush's 8 YEAR TERM while trying to attribute 9 YEARS of fiscal years, to Pres. Obama's 8 year term....

that's cheating, or fudging the numbers....

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

 

[SAYIT]

lower prices will positively help the entire citizenry and national economy here except the oil and gas industry, who had been the sector holding our economy up the past few years... they can be hurt, but the rest of the nation should prosper for a bit... imo

To the extent that our oil and gas production is not only good for the American economy but also good for our foreign interests, I'd say we would be well served by doing what we must to keep our frackers fracking. Tax credits or subsidies to high-cost shale operators seem an obvious way to keep the downward pressure on oil prices which, as most should agree, are good for Americans and most of the planet.

Yes, good for American today, but not necessary good for America or the world in the future. So let's enjoy what we have today and let our despondence's worry about the world we leave them.

Since lower oil pricing at any time is good for America and most of the world, you must be making the environmental argument which has some validity but not when contrasted to the economic and political benefits we are reaping today. The environmental impact is not significantly greater at $40/bbl than it is at $100/bbl but the economic benefit for America and most of the world is humongous.
I am curious about your use of the word "despondence's."
Who or what are they? Did you mean descendants?

 

[Care4all]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

 

[longknife]

Oil is necessary for the production of just about everything. As oil prices drop manufacturing costs drop and companies are able to expand and increase production and hire more more skilled labor. Cheap diesel prices drive down transportation costs and the producer and consumer are both better off. When the cost of av-gas drops more people fly and more tourist dollars are spread around. Of course if the government gets involved in the production and cost of oil all bets are off. The radical left is a doom and gloom faction of society and they would whine if they were giving out gold.

Thank you for an excellent post!

 

[longknife]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

The House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution every year since 2009!

The Senate has not passed a single budget resolution since 2009!

Therefore, there has not been a constitutionally required budget enacted by the president in 5 years!!!

 

[Care4all]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

The House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution every year since 2009!

The Senate has not passed a single budget resolution since 2009!

Therefore, there has not been a constitutionally required budget enacted by the president in 5 years!!!

TRUE!
Thus the name "Do NOTHING Congress"

 

[BullKurtz]

I see the movement away from fossil fuels as a very long process taking at least a hundred years. It will probably take at least another 20 years are so to come up with an agreed upon viable plan and a method of financing it. The real answer for power generation needs to be a new technology such as fusion and who knows how long that's going to take. Even if we had practical fusion generation available today, it would probably take 50 years to replace all fossil fuel generation.

Since any oil from "fossil fuels" was used up over a hundred years ago, I'd say your prediction is pretty much useless. Oil is an abiotic resource continuously being produced in the earth's core and we'll never run out of it...the world may have as much oil as we have water....nobody really knows. What we do know is that "BIG OIL" has been happy to agree with the green lunatics about "peak oil" so they can keep their prices high due to fake scarcity. Our frackers have shown we can have sub-$2 gasoline just from the small areas they've been working....once we get the muslim Hussein either back to Hawaii or in Leavenworth, and get a GOP leader, watch us dwarf the saudis in cheap oil.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

Duh! It's like talking to a wall.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush's budget proposal would have added 1 trillion, but the bill once obama got his hands on it left us with a nearly 1.5 trillion deficit. Have you ever heard of a continuing resolution?

yes, the President has to sign every darn one of them...

Please show us where the Budget resolution from October of 2008, that president Obama signed was any different than the Budget President Bush submitted to congress.

The House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution every year since 2009!

The Senate has not passed a single budget resolution since 2009!

Therefore, there has not been a constitutionally required budget enacted by the president in 5 years!!!

TRUE!
Thus the name "Do NOTHING Congress"

And you want to blame the GOP because the Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget, right? You're a complete and utter idiot.

 

[Ernie S.]

You can't be this stupid by accident.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if Bush's Budget had been passed and followed to the tee, in January 09, when the GAO/CBO scored his/Bush's budget proposal delivered to congress for fiscal 09, their estimate was that Bush's budget proposal would give our Nation OVER a TRILLION dollar deficit.

Let me ask you this - and please do try to be honest in your response....
Both Dem-controlled houses houses of Congress wrote and passed the FY2009 Budget.
BHO signed the FY2009 budget.
How much blame do you assign The Dem-controlled Congress and BHO for the FY2009 deficit?

 

[Ernie S.]

15 June 2010
There was NO Bush FY2009 Budget

There was NO FY2009 budget signed into law by Bush. He signed a CR into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009.
For those of you that are unaware of the fact that there was no Bush FY2009 and that the Left has lied to you, this is what happened:

Bush's proposed FY2009 budget called for spending of only $3.11 trillion, which was just a 3% increase. Democrats controlled the Congress and were certain that Obama was going to get elected. They wanted to wait to set 2009 spending levels on much of the government until he was in office.

The Democrat-controlled Congress only passed THREE of FY2009's 12 appropriations bills for Bush to sign before 1 October 2008, the beginning of FY2009: Defence, Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.

So, Bush signed a Continuing Resolution into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009.

On 11 March 2009, President Barack H. Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law. Furthermore, Bush is not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009, the Defence Supplemental of 06.09 loaded with pork, Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, Unemployment Insurance extensions, Making Home Affordable, a massive $680 billion defence bill in September - once again laden with pork, etc.

President Obama and his Democrat Congress ended up spending $3.52 trillion in 2009, which represented a 17.9% increase in spending -- the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.

By January 2010, spending as a percentage of GDP was 25.24% -- the highest it had been in the United States since World War II.

Yes, Obama's spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, but only ever so slightly. During George W Bush's 8 years as president, spending averaged 19.6% of GDP. Under President Clinton, spending as a percentage of GDP was 19.8%. In the decades following World War II, the average has been 19.7%. The average for Obama's first term is projected to be 24.3%.

President Bush's FY 2009 budget proposal was 3.1 trillion. It didn't pass. President Bush signed a continuing resolution. Fast forward to January 2009. barack obama is now President. His budget proposal was 3.6 trillion, a 16% increase over the Bush package in addition to the 831 billion stimulus package
he passed.

That's 4.4 trillion obama vs. 3.1 Bush or a 42% increase in spending.

 

[Toro]

Really not a lot we can do to control the price...

We produce 4 million more barrels of oil a day in this country than we did a decade ago.

That's ultimately why they price collapsed.

 

[Moonglow]

Really not a lot we can do to control the price...

We produce 4 million more barrels of oil a day in this country than we did a decade ago.

That's ultimately why they price collapsed.

The price finally collapsed yes, since it was over inflated for many years...but the over price lead to it's decline...by way of more production...