• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.

gcubed

Member
speculawyer said:
Ugh indeed. I really feel that oil is choking our economy. Anytime things start looking better, the price of oil then goes up. People then have to spend more of their money filling their tanks instead of restaurants, movies, shopping, entertainment, etc. And that gas money mostly leaves the country to pay for the oil.

So we are stuck in wrenching period of adjustment as we try to figure out how to live with more expensive oil. And since people MUST fill their tanks to get to their jobs, that means that we mostly adjust by cutting elsewhere. Some people like to analogize it as a hefty "tax" increase on everyone . . . but it is worse than a tax. With a tax, at least the government puts that money back into our economy.

Edit: The one bright spot could be the oil boom in North Dakota and deepwater Gulf of Mexico. But in the big picture, those are just temporary and only help keep us addicted.


Obama needs to open up ANWR. He needs to kill the "hippies are stopping us from being oil independent" meme. That is the only way people will start addressing the problem seriously. We won't make a serious effort until our backs are up against the wall.

I agree that we need to use what we got. Although i dont see it changing any kind of narrative. Unless we grossly underestimated what is up in ANWR. That and it will take what, 5 years minimum for that oil to hit the market. Thats too late to have an affect on our economy now. The only boom will be in hiring.

Can we at least make sure we can have all of the US get the Alaska Capitalism Erection fund?
 
gcubed said:
I agree that we need to use what we got. Although i dont see it changing any kind of narrative. Unless we grossly underestimated what is up in ANWR. That and it will take what, 5 years minimum for that oil to hit the market. Thats too late to have an affect on our economy now. The only boom will be in hiring.

Can we at least make sure we dont have to give Alaska more socialism checks out of the deal?
It's not socialism. That's an investment fund and it pays dividends. Capitalist to the max!
 

gcubed

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
It's not socialism. That's an investment fund and it pays dividends. Capitalist to the max!

sorry, will have to reflect it!

although if i understand it correctly, the money gets there from private company mineral sales that leave alaska and then gets redistributed to the public.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
reilo said:
Oh yay. I didn't see gas prices change (read: drop) at all in the past two months, and now the cost of oil is going up just in time to for me to feel a new price hike. Wooh.

Hey--there COULD be a storm coming that COULD hit the production facilities.

Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds and shouldn't be allowed.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Obama Administration Considers Housing Refinance Plan
By: Shaila Dewan and Louise Story
The New York Times



obama_signing_health_bill_200.jpg





The Obama administration is considering further actions to strengthen the housing market, but the bar is high: plans must help a broad swath of homeowners, stimulate the economy and cost next to nothing.


One proposal would allow millions of homeowners with government-backed mortgages to refinance them at today’s lower interest rates, about 4 percent, according to two people briefed on the administration’s discussions who asked not to be identified because they were not allowed to talk about the information.

A wave of refinancing could be a strong stimulus to the economy, because it would lower consumers’ mortgage bills right away and allow them to spend elsewhere. But such a sweeping change could face opposition from the regulator who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and from investors in government-backed mortgage bonds.

Administration officials said on Wednesday that they were weighing a range of proposals, including changes to its previous refinancing programs to increase the number of homeowners taking part. They are also working on a home rental program that would try to shore up housing prices by preventing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes from flooding the market. That program is further along — the administration requested ideas for execution from the private sector earlier this month.


But refinancing could have far greater breadth, saving homeowners, by one estimate, $85 billion a year. Despite record low interest rates, many homeowners have been unable to refinance their loans either because they owe more than their houses are now worth or because their credit is tarnished.

Exactly how a refinancing plan might work is still under discussion. It is unclear, for example, whether people who are delinquent on their mortgages would be eligible or whether lenders would administer it. Federal officials have consistently overestimated the number of households that would be helped by their various housing assistance programs.

A working group of housing experts across several federal agencies could recommend one or both proposals, or come up with new ones. Or it might decide to do nothing.

Investors may suspect a plan is in the works. Fannie and Freddie mortgage bonds had been trading well above their face value because so few people were refinancing, keeping returns on the bonds high. But those bond prices dropped sharply this week.


Administration discussions about housing proposals have taken on added urgency this summer because the housing market is continuing to deteriorate. On Wednesday, the government said that prices of homes with government-backed mortgages fell 5.9 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, the biggest decline since 2009. More than one in five homeowners with mortgages owe more than their homes are worth. Some analysts are now predicting waves of foreclosures and a continuing slide in home prices.

There is not much time to help the market before the 2012 election, and given Congressional resistance to other types of stimulus, housing may be the only economic fix in reach. Federal programs to assist homeowners have been regarded as ineffective so far, and they are complex.

“We are looking at trying to encourage more participation in all of the programs, including those that help with refinancing,” said Phyllis Caldwell, who oversees housing policy at the Treasury Department.

Some economists say that with housing prices and interest rates at affordable levels, only fear is keeping consumers out of the market. Frank E. Nothaft, the chief economist at Freddie Mac, said the federal action could instill confidence.

“It almost seems to me you want to have some type of announcement or policy, program or something from the federal government that provides that clear signal that we are here supporting the housing market and this is indeed a good time to really consider buying,” Mr. Nothaft said.


Jack Mamelet
A mass refinancing plan would spread the benefits of low interest rates to more people.

The refinancing idea has been around since at least 2008, but proponents say the recent drop in interest rates to below 4 percent may breathe new life into the plan.

“This is the best stimulus out there because it doesn’t increase the deficit, it accomplishes monetary policy, and it reduces defaults in housing,” said Christopher J. Mayer, an economist at the Columbia Business School. “So I think this is low-hanging fruit.” Mr. Mayer and a colleague, Glenn Hubbard, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, proposed an early version of the plan.

The idea is appealing because it would not necessarily require Congressional action
. It also would not tap any of the $45.6 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Funds that was set aside to help struggling homeowners. Only $22.9 billion of that pool has been spent or pledged so far, and fewer than 1.7 million loans have been modified under federal programs. But Andrea Risotto, a Treasury spokeswoman, said whatever was left would be used to reduce the federal deficit.

A mass refinancing plan would spread the benefits of the Federal Reserve’s most important economic policy response, low interest rates, to more people. As of July, an estimated $2.4 trillion in mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie carried interest rates of 4.5 percent or higher.

The two prevailing ideas, lowering rates on mortgages and converting houses owned by government entities like Freddie and Fannie into rentals and other uses, have somewhat different pockets of support. Investment firms would like to participate in the rental program, especially if the government lends them money to participate. For the most part, banks prefer the refinancing plan.

There are many high-ranking proponents of the refinancing plan. Joseph Tracy, a senior adviser to the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, has circulated a presentation in support of the plan. And Richard B. Berner, who recently joined the Treasury Department as counselor to Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, argued in favor of a blanket refinancing in his previous job as chief United States economist for Morgan Stanley [MS 17.04 -0.28 (-1.62%) ]. The proponents say the plan carries little risk because the mortgages are already guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also say it makes those loans less likely to go into default and ultimately foreclosure.

But the plan has some drawbacks. Some officials fear that promoting mass refinancings today could spook investors and make borrowing more expensive, for both homeowners and the federal government, in the future.

The government has already encouraged some refinancing through the Federal Housing Administration and through Fannie and Freddie, but participation is limited. For example, the Home Affordable Refinance Program excludes homeowners who owe more than 125 percent of the value of their house. To spur more refinancing, the government may decide to encourage Fannie and Freddie to lift such restrictions.

But government officials cautioned that Fannie and Freddie do not do the administration’s bidding, even though they are essentially owned by taxpayers. Edward J. DeMarco, who oversees the companies as chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has voiced concerns about any plan that might cost the companies money, according to the two people briefed on the discussions. “F.H.F.A. remains open to all ideas that provide needed assistance to borrowers” while minimizing the cost to taxpayers, Mr. DeMarco said in a written statement.

A broader criticism of a refinancing expansion is that it would not do enough to address the two main drivers of foreclosures: homes worth less than their mortgages, and a sudden loss of income, like unemployment. American homeowners currently owe some $700 billion more than their homes are worth.



######################


I love the idea of turning underwater homes or foreclosed homes into rental properties. I think that is the best option, because it also conditions people to being able to accept the fact that they shouldn't own a home at all cost. Sometimes it's okay to rent for awhile until your house (no pun intended) is in order.

What do you Poligaffers think about these two approaches?
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
gcubed said:
as someone with a Fannie Mae loan that is at 5%, if you drop me down to under 4% without costing me money, i'd be happy.

I am on Freddie at 6.5, so I would love an easy refinance. HARP on Freddie is near impossible it seems.
 
mckmas8808 said:
I love the idea of turning underwater homes or foreclosed homes into rental properties. I think that is the best option, because it also conditions people to being able to accept the fact that they shouldn't own a home at all cost. Sometimes it's okay to rent for awhile until your house (no pun intended) is in order.

What do you Poligaffers think about these two approaches?
I think it's a brilliant idea. But what I'm also thinking is there has to be a catch.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
RustyNails said:
I think it's a brilliant idea. But what I'm also thinking is there has to be a catch.

Well the obvious catch is that the GOP will never sign on to it.
 
Tangential to that refinancing idea, which would be great for speeding up consumer deleveraging (I feel like there's not sense in learning fancy jargon if you don't post it obnoxiously):

Investors everywhere need to be disabused of the notion that they are engaged in some sort of riskless enterprise. The number of sensible policy solutions in the United States and in Europe that have been discarded because, heaven forbid, the investors will lose some money is incredibly frustrating.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
It's simply Fannie and Freddie implementing programs where instead of kicking people out of their homes for mortage delinquencies, individuals can continue to rent the property until they come to a deal on refinancing the remaining mortgage principal.

The only people who have a say are the regulators of Fannie and Freddie are the regulators and the people who have invested in real-estate bonds (basically bonds issued by fannie and freddie).

I think it's a brilliant idea. In the short term it may cause a slight decrease in housing prices, but in the long term it will provide some much needed stability to real estate values, and the decrease in equity-returns from refinancing can be offset by rental payments. Plus, the alternative of completely halting a mortgage and losing a customer, being left with an unoccupied home, is not desireable for fannie and freddie.

It should help prevent booms and busts like those we've seen over the last 2 decades. We might even see the middle class end up with more disposable and discretionary income since their money won't be all tied up in their property and property taxes, as this policy should over the long term slow the pace of growth in real estate values.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Invisible_Insane said:
Tangential to that refinancing idea, which would be great for speeding up consumer deleveraging (I feel like there's not sense in learning fancy jargon if you don't post it obnoxiously):

Investors everywhere need to be disabused of the notion that they are engaged in some sort of riskless enterprise. The number of sensible policy solutions in the United States and in Europe that have been discarded because, heaven forbid, the investors will lose some money is incredibly frustrating.
Yeah, they'll be losing (well, making less of a return on their investment, not losing outright) money because the housing market won't be as risky. If things go to hell, then no one gets paid. Isn't it better to ensure that things don't go to hell, even if it means people get paid a little less when things are peachy? Especially if it means the middle class has more financial flexibility and stability.
 
GaimeGuy said:
Yeah, they'll be losing (well, making less of a return on their investment, not losing outright) money because the housing market won't be as risky. If things go to hell, then no one gets paid. Isn't it better to ensure that things don't go to hell, even if it means people get paid a little less when things are peachy?
You would think.
 
Freeing up money with lower refinancing certainly won't hurt but I don't think it will help as much as many people think. I feel many people will simply save the money and pay down other debts. Their home values are probably down significantly and their 401(k)s are not doing so hot, so they are just not likely to spend much of that money.

I'd like to see another push at some energy conservation stimulus types of things. In today's world, there are exceedingly few good investment opportunities. People are buying T-Bills where they effectively get negative interest. If energy conservation projects can be pitched as 'investments' (which they really are) where you will get a decent return in reduced fuel bills, then perhaps more people will do such projects. And those are domestic jobs.

I guess this would be a repeat of some of the stuff from the previous stimulus package but it is low-hanging fruit that makes some sense. If you invest $X thousand in attic insulation, replacing your oil-burning furnace, putting up a PV system, etc. that investment will provide a REAL and CERTAIN return on your investment. If people can be encouraged to figure out which are the right ones and persuaded to do them, we can get some gainful economic activity going.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
speculawyer said:
Freeing up money with lower refinancing certainly won't hurt but I don't think it will help as much as many people think. I feel many people will simply save the money and pay down other debts. Their home values are probably down significantly and their 401(k)s are not doing so hot, so they are just not likely to spend much of that money.

I'd like to see another push at some energy conservation stimulus types of things. In today's world, there are exceedingly few good investment opportunities. People are buying T-Bills where they effectively get negative interest. If energy conservation projects can be pitched as 'investments' (which they really are) where you will get a decent return in reduced fuel bills, then perhaps more people will do such projects. And those are domestic jobs.

I guess this would be a repeat of some of the stuff from the previous stimulus package but it is low-hanging fruit that makes some sense. If you invest $X thousand in attic insulation, replacing your oil-burning furnace, putting up a PV system, etc. that investment will provide a REAL and CERTAIN return on your investment. If people can be encouraged to figure out which are the right ones and persuaded to do them, we can get some gainful economic activity going.
The problem is THAT would require congressional approval. Which just isn't going to happen.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
speculawyer said:
Freeing up money with lower refinancing certainly won't hurt but I don't think it will help as much as many people think. I feel many people will simply save the money and pay down other debts. Their home values are probably down significantly and their 401(k)s are not doing so hot, so they are just not likely to spend much of that money.


Is that such a bad thing?
 

Averon

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Yeah, they'll be losing (well, making less of a return on their investment, not losing outright) money because the housing market won't be as risky. If things go to hell, then no one gets paid. Isn't it better to ensure that things don't go to hell, even if it means people get paid a little less when things are peachy?

Greed knows no bounds. Gotta make that extra $50,000 (out of >$1 million) regardless of the risks.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Is that such a bad thing?
Long term: no. Less household debt will be a good thing.

Short term: yes, as we have a lot of slack demand in the economy. We need to boost it. (My suggestion is, moar jobs, but hey. What do I know.)
 
Diablos said:
You mean fortunately.

Obama could beat Perry. He cannot beat Romney. Well, he could, but it would be the most challenging scenario.
I seriously doubt that Romney would win the presidency. He is a Mormon and a lot of Christians do not acknowledge Mormons as Christians. Did that change recently or what? I don´t see how Romney would win without Evangelical support.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Is that such a bad thing?
In the long term, it is a good thing. But in the short term, we want some increased demand and spending. I agree it helps but just not as much as many people think it will.
Edit: Totally beat by Ghaleon.
 

HylianTom

Banned
speculawyer said:
Ugh indeed. I really feel that oil is choking our economy. Anytime things start looking better, the price of oil then goes up. People then have to spend more of their money filling their tanks instead of restaurants, movies, shopping, entertainment, etc. And that gas money mostly leaves the country to pay for the oil.

So we are stuck in wrenching period of adjustment as we try to figure out how to live with more expensive oil. And since people MUST fill their tanks to get to their jobs, that means that we mostly adjust by cutting elsewhere. Some people like to analogize it as a hefty "tax" increase on everyone . . . but it is worse than a tax. With a tax, at least the government puts that money back into our economy.

Edit: The one bright spot could be the oil boom in North Dakota and deepwater Gulf of Mexico. But in the big picture, those are just temporary and only help keep us addicted.

Obama needs to open up ANWR. He needs to kill the "hippies are stopping us from being oil independent" meme. That is the only way people will start addressing the problem seriously. We won't make a serious effort until our backs are up against the wall.

peakoi31.gif


Obama.. Perry.. it probably doesn't matter. Any effort we make when our backs are against the wall will be too late. And then it will be watered-down in the name of getting through anti-science zealots in Congress. We're going to pretend to ignore it as long as we possibly can.

Let's drill the planet until it looks like swiss cheese.

aspo_drill_deeper.jpg
 
HylianTom said:

We haven't even been able to hit $147/barrel again . . . I'm not sure if that is good news or bad news. But I think it is a moot point, I think we'll hit that number within 3 years . . . even if the economy just continues to scrape along as it has.


HylianTom said:
Obama.. Perry.. it probably doesn't matter. Any effort we make when our backs are against the wall will be too late. And then it will be watered-down in the name of getting through anti-science zealots in Congress. We're going to pretend to ignore it as long as we possibly can.
Well the anti-science zealots have to have an alternative plan to address the issue. Right now, they can always say "Drill ANWR!" If we eliminate that alternative plan and still have a problem (which we will), what will they say then? I guess they can say drill OCS, but there really isn't much oil there. And that would really go against states rights. And be quite hypocritical since it is Republican governors like Crist and Bush (and Scott?) that have opposed drilling off the Florida coast.

Energy could be an interesting issue. Some people think that Perry could take a swipe at Bachmann for her completely delusional $2/gallon gas promise. He and his advisors know that claim was batshit crazy. Personally, I don't think he'll take the bait because he'll want to make a similar (but less delusional) argument against Obama.


HylianTom said:
That is inevitable. Oil is just too magical. It is quite literally buried treasure. Aand we even have modern day pirates go after it!
 

Averon

Member
President Obama’s Job Plan: New Details Unveiled

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/president-obamas-job-plan-new-details-unveiled/

Tonight on World News we reported on new details of the president’s job plan that he is set to reveal next week – a plan that is critical to his re-election.

Today the White House told us it will be “new,” “significant,” and “detailed” and promises that President Obama’s highly touted speech includes a proposal for how the government will pay for these initiatives without adding to our debt. And ABC News has learned that Obama will take aim at three areas in hopes of helping the 14 million unemployed Americans.

1.) Tax Relief: President Obama will propose tax relief incentives for companies that create jobs and hire new workers.

2.)Infrastructure Investment: The president wants the government to invest in clean energy and new construction projects to build schools and transportation.

3.) Assistance for Long Term Unemployed: Obama wants to help those who have been out of work for six months or more, which adds up to about 6 million Americans. Specifically the president is looking at a program such as Georgia Works – which gives unemployed Americans eight weeks of training at a local company while allowing them to still collect their unemployment benefits. And it’s no cost to the participating company.

And as John Berman reported tonight, Georgia claims that the companies hired 24% of those workers while another 60% were hired elsewhere.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Just had an economic professor complain the county is moving away from the free market... then show a chart of economic freedom that includes Switzerland in the top 5 ahead of the us... *sigh*
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
speculawyer said:
Obama needs to open up ANWR. He needs to kill the "hippies are stopping us from being oil independent" meme. That is the only way people will start addressing the problem seriously. We won't make a serious effort until our backs are up against the wall.
I'd rather not take the "Let's relive the industrial revolution just to prove a point" route. :p

Besides, your reasoning assumes they'll even care by the time it turns out ANWR is a bust. They will move on to some other pet peeve.
 
speculawyer said:
Well the anti-science zealots have to have an alternative plan to address the issue. Right now, they can always say "Drill ANWR!" If we eliminate that alternative plan and still have a problem (which we will), what will they say then? I guess they can say drill OCS, but there really isn't much oil there. And that would really go against states rights. And be quite hypocritical since it is Republican governors like Crist and Bush (and Scott?) that have opposed drilling off the Florida coast.

These are structural problems. Our drastic income inequalities have caused a political "stupidity trap," which is not entirely unlike an economic "liquidity trap." The balance of resources is so lopsided and concentrated in such few hands, that it distorts influence on politicians, rendering the system undemocratic. One solution to this is political organization, but the maldistribution of income is itself a hindrance to this path. As regular people fall further and further behind, they have less time and resources to think and organize politically, and they are more and more susceptible to the messages inundating them that are intended to condition and manipulate them, which messages, incidentally, are paid for with money that is available to be spent by the powerful on such pernicious activities precisely because of the large income imbalance in the first place. That's what makes it a "trap." (Ideally, the money that the rich and powerful spent on conditioning and manipulating people and buying politicians would instead be collected as taxes and redistributed through government spending. It is socially wasteful, and obviously socially detrimental, spending by the rich that could be spent better by government, which is exactly how we should think about taxing and spending.)

I realize this seems like it has little to do with your comment, but it does have something to do with it. There is no rational reason to drill in ANWR (which I am sure you are fully aware). But you are proposing to allow drilling it anyway solely to take away a political argument. But that's not going to work; or, rather, it can work in only one way. We will only reverse course (including on energy policy) when a rational distribution of income (and, accordingly, power) is restored. Oil companies do not want to drill ANWR because it will help the US (they know it will have no effect whatsoever); they want to drill it because it helps them (it's a product from which they can profit).

The restoration of a reasonable balance of power will happen either because we are successfully able to organize politically despite the great odds that have been stacked against us, or because the system collapses. We are plunging headlong towards the latter, which is effectively what you recommend by "giving up" on prohibitions of ANWR drilling. But if it is the case that we should just give up in order to force hands (i.e., to speed social collapse), then shouldn't we all just vote for Rick Perry for president? That guy will bring armageddon like nobody's fucking business.

Hitokage said:
I'd rather not take the "Let's relive the industrial revolution just to prove a point" route. :p

Besides, your reasoning assumes they'll even care by the time it turns out ANWR is a bust. They will move on to some other pet peeve.

Ha. Hadn't read this yet, but you said in two sentences what it took me three paragraphs to say.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
If our focus is truly about creating jobs for people and revenues for government, then it's foolish to be against ANWR. Especially when you could attach additional taxes that funnel funds to green energy initiatives to get it passed.

It's the same kind of backwards thinking that has kept our country lagging behind the world in nuclear energy utilization.


ToxicAdam said:
Free-trade pacts (lol)
Extension of payroll tax cut
Infrastructure bank
Upgrading American schools (energy efficiency and technology)
Retraining for long-term unemployed
Tax credits for small businesses to hire


That's my guess.

He knows it will not be passed, so he will include a lot of 'Republican-friendly' ideas and watch them oppose it and then use it for political leverage. Just another day in Washington.

Welp, got it right. Just expected more.
 
Im being smothered in irony.

The 9/11 memorial opens on...9/11.

And apparently, it's been designed to say "the terrorists have won"

This is the "welcome room" visitors to the memorial will have to pass through. No, its not a public plaza. You need tickets and must go through a security screening.

Welcome to america, the land of over reaction, capitulation and fear.

6074643277_694c5790b2_b.jpg
 
ToxicAdam said:
If our focus is truly about creating jobs for people and revenues for government, then it's foolish to be against ANWR. Especially when you could attach additional taxes that funnel funds to green energy initiatives to get it passed.

I would agree with you if we were structurally constrained in our ability to create jobs, but we aren't. That a sector of the business class is insisting on drilling could be considered a form of political blackmail. The drilling itself provides no direct benefit whatsoever to Americans (only the indirect benefit of jobs). It's like paying people to dig holes and then fill them back up, except, in this example, private people profit from it (so it actually amounts to a drain). Building rail, even rail that is severely under-traveled, would provide more of a benefit because it would provide both jobs and a service. (This is just an example and not intended to be advocacy of building rail.) Drilling oil is a complete social waste, in my opinion.
 
ToxicAdam said:
So, it's no different than visiting the Statue of Liberty, eh?

There was a time when one could freely stroll into the statue and climb to the very top of the torch.

I like to pretend we still live in that time.
 
jamesinclair said:
Im being smothered in irony.

The 9/11 memorial opens on...9/11.

And apparently, it's been designed to say "the terrorists have won"

This is the "welcome room" visitors to the memorial will have to pass through. No, its not a public plaza. You need tickets and must go through a security screening.

Welcome to america, the land of over reaction, capitulation and fear.

6074643277_694c5790b2_b.jpg

Its ridiculous with how much Al Qaeda has succeeded with their 9/11 attack.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
empty vessel said:
I would agree with you if we were structurally constrained in our ability to create jobs.

Northeastern Alaska is an area you wouldn't consider 'structurally constrained' to create jobs?


The drilling itself provides no direct benefit whatsoever to Americans (only the indirect benefit of jobs).

You would instantly create a generation of 10's of thousands of tax payers that would add additional revenues to state and federal coffers which can be redistributed to Americans. For decades to come. If you could successfully tack on an additional tax that funnels money to green energy projects, that would be another immeasurable benefit to society.

jamesinclair said:
I like to pretend we still live in that time.

I feel ya.


FLEABttn said:
Does that really make the situation better?

But it's just reality.
 
Hitokage said:
I'd rather not take the "Let's relive the industrial revolution just to prove a point" route. :p

Besides, your reasoning assumes they'll even care by the time it turns out ANWR is a bust. They will move on to some other pet peeve.
Relive the industrial evolution? I'm not sure what you mean.

And move on to some other pet peeve? LOL, no. The price of oil will only become a bigger issue in the future years. The die is cast.


EV said:
There is no rational reason to drill in ANWR (which I am sure you are fully aware). But you are proposing to allow drilling it anyway solely to take away a political argument. But that's not going to work; or, rather, it can work in only one way. We will only reverse course (including on energy policy) when a rational distribution of income (and, accordingly, power) is restored. Oil companies do not want to drill ANWR because it will help the US (they know it will have no effect whatsoever); they want to drill it because it helps them (it's a product from which they can profit).
No rational reason to drill? There is oil there. Oil is valuable. That is a rational reason to drill. We shouldn't drill because we set the area aside because it is a "Wildlife Reserve". But we are not so good at honoring our reservation commitments . . . ask any native American. ;-)

Taking away a political argument is just one important reason to drill, not the sole reason. I put more reasoning in my post in the Jean Shaheen thread.

I fully agree that oil companies want to drill because they will profit. That is their job.

EV said:
Drilling oil is a complete social waste, in my opinion.
He typed on his keyboard that is literally made directly from oil. LOL! Either give up on modern society or rationally accept the things that must be done to run it.

You would instantly create a generation of 10's of thousands of tax payers that would add additional revenues to state and federal coffers which can be redistributed to Americans. For decades to come.
Oil rig make babbyz! ;-) That is "drill, baby, drill" Palin-style.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Northeastern Alaska is an area you wouldn't consider 'structurally constrained' to create jobs?

No, we'd have to send people there to do it. Why don't we create jobs where people already are? It's not like we can't.

ToxicAdam said:
You would instantly create a generation of 10's of thousands of tax payers that would add additional revenues to state and federal coffers which can be redistributed to Americans. For decades to come. If you could successfully tack on an additional tax that funnels money to green energy projects, that would be another immeasurable benefit to society.

Those are all indirect benefits, all of which could be accomplished in ways that actually do provide direct benefits (i.e., provide meaningful services to or create meaningful goods for Americans). Oil is the past, not the future. Every resource (public or private) spent on it from here forward is ultimately wasted. The nature preserve is more valuable to our future than the oil. Think of that oil as our society's strategic reserve for when the shit really hits the fan in 4025.

(By the way, I am not coming at this from the perspective of an environmentalist. For a progressive, I'm a terrible environmentalist. I believe the environment is there to be used, but obviously only in ways that sustain us and that make sense.)

speculawyer said:
He typed on his keyboard that is literally made directly from oil. LOL! Either give up on modern society or rationally accept the things that must be done to run it.

I have a petroleum engineering degree, so I'm well aware of the products oil creates. My comment was meant in a broader sense. You know as well as I do that oil is finite and we have to find a way forward. Now is the time for investment. We shouldn't be drilling for oil to create jobs. Better jobs can be created.
 

Piecake

Member
speculawyer said:
Yeah . . . the fan is couple thousand years closer than you realize.

don't you mean the shit?

But yea, I'd have to agree with not drilling into that Alaskan nature preserve. Would rather just spend all of that money on green tech since that is what is actually going to help us in the future and create more tech savy (aka better jobs)
 
The strategic reserve makes no sense. If we ever got in the situation where we really needed it then what good would that amount of oil do? We could keep our country going for a couple of weeks/months maybe? Or just ration it out to the rich/government elite? It's like a guy with an apocalypse shelter. If the shit really hits the fan, then does it really matter if your bunker can keep you going for another 2 weeks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom