President Bush did the right thing by lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling. We desperately need more supplies of oil and natural gas, whether they be found off shore, inland, above ground, or underground. We have the technology and resources to begin to move away from being held hostage by foreign nations, yet the Democrats, who are funded and run by enviro-nutjobs and their pet projects they invest in, refuse to recognize reality or economics.
We will not be "off of oil" within the next 15 years. It won't happen. We need oil for homes, automobiles, plastics, and many other vitally important things. As we move to other sources, we will need to have oil, and we should be producing it here at home, be it for national security, strengthening the dollar, stopping interruption flows (be it from foreign strikes or terrorist attacks), etc. In fact, the public is fully behind the efforts to begin drilling here at home. Please reference this article. The rise in support for domestic drilling is growing exponentially.
A fact sheet that was recently brought to my attention is an excellent source of information and shoots down the concerns of the average environmentalist, who basically has no idea what they are talking about nor the facts to back up their outrageous claims. Congress, of course, under the direction of uber Left Wingers Reid and Pelosi are trying to stop this effort to become self sufficient and more secure in our energy needs. Contrary to Reid's belief that Oil "makes us sick" or the Dems policy of "drive small cars and wait for the wind" Americans know the reality that they do not. To Harry Reid's point, it's not Global Warming that's making us sick, it is him and his cronies in Congress. Even as we develop more sources of energy and increase efficiency, energy supplies such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are abundant, can be clean, and begin to hit the market place much faster and have a much more dramatic impact as sources such as wind, solar, etc are developed and brought into the fold as well.
Energy solutions should be regionally based. Pennsylvania, Alaska, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah have abundant sources of natural gas that can be tapped and begin to be used. Louisiana and Florida, for example can safely extract oil offshore. These are real solutions which can impact us now, and if we move on it NOW, then we will see results. It is not coincidence that as President Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling, prices dropped nearly $9. Let's see if the morons in Congress actually care about the people of America and hold up their end of the deal.
-Caomhin
Showing posts with label Oil Prices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil Prices. Show all posts
28 February 2008
House Democrats Attack Oil Industry; Threaten to Raise Price of Gasoline and Heating Oil
Nearly unbelievable, but then, this is the Democratic Party after all, basically the American equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party. I know a good number of the people who are on the Left side of the political spectrum will consider that an unfair argument, but let's take a look at just how socialist of an antic this destined to be vetoed bill is:
1. Levy's a tax on single industry by $18 billion dollars.
2. Is a transfer tax to inefficient sector of the energy industry ("alternative sources") which are more than capable of making advances on their own within the free market. Consider this article to from IBDeditorials.com, the first few sentences sum up the bio-diesel industry extremely well:
In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.
Stick around for the part about how much higher in carbon emissions it is in comparison to oil.
3. Completely irresponsible, especially when the reason that the Democrats give for their need to raise taxes on oil is due to "record oil prices and gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles." So raising taxes on oil companies and effectively further increasing the price of gas and heating oil as well as plastics, etc will somehow be good for the economy? It will be good during an economically mild environment to punish a successful industry and punish consumers by artificially raising prices even further? Astonishing. Please reference the previous post about the Democrats' need for economic woes for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the American citizens.
4. Further expansion on my point about the negative impact it will have on consumers and investors is that a raise in taxes on the oil industry, in which many, many workers, from the bottom on up, have investments in their 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. This will negatively impact the bottom line on everyone from workers to the industry itself.
5. Jim McDermott (D-WA) calls the tax bracket that the oil companies are in a "subsidy". Interesting where he and the other Democrats fail to leave out the part where the world-wide effective tax rate on oil companies was 37% in 2006 compared to 35% in 2001, which is above the top US corporate tax bracket of 35% as it is (statistics from Energy Information Administration's Annual Financial Reporting System). Tax rates above even the tax rate can in no way be qualified as a "subsidy."
6. The House Democrats are essentially attacking the Oil industry in order to give a kick back to their friends who have undoubtedly invested heavily in alternative energy sources, while attempting to villainize a sector of our economy vital to our economic health and national security in an attempt to further their class warfare rhetoric.
I'm not basing alternative energy as a means to bring more stability to the energy market, but the Democrats are transparent in the effort to produce energy at home, they simply do not want that either. Refinery capacity remains a serious issue for our nation. The Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to build new refineries to help provide the energy needs of our nation. In fact, as energy demand has grown over time, their interference with the free market in this area is leading directly to higher costs. Indeed, technology has greatly improved since the last time we actually built a refinery and should a new one be built, then these the new plants would be much more efficient and safer than existing facilities.
Opposing the exploration and drilling of areas close to home is another example of the Democrats are lying about their desire to have our national security protected by providing for the production of our energy needs within our soil. Natural gas and coal are plentiful in this country and one of the most promising technologies that results in, ahem, "cleaner" energy is liquefied coal, something they will not fully support either. Ethanol has proven to be inefficient as an energy source, and even if the Democrats were serious about that, then where is the drum beating to eliminate the tariffs from ethanol imported from Brazil? Even now, as the price of wheat and corn rises to record highs, we are not hearing the Democrats decry the evils of farm subsidies as this is one of the large organizations that help control the Democratic Party.
Nuclear is another area where the Democrats show their true colors on the energy policy. We have not built a reactor in quite a long time, despite the fact that the technological advances are far greater since the 1970s and the technology can be rolled out rapidly and would further help the economy in utilizing plutonium sources within our shores. They constantly use fear tactics with regard to nuclear energy to discourage its usage.
With regard to wind and solar these are only regional fixes, not national. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow it would benefit Alaska (of which some parts do not have sunlight for very long periods of time) to use solar as opposed to oil and natural gas, of which it is bountiful. Over time these technologies will be improved and become an integral part of our economy and infrastructure, however, to lie to the American people about the speed of the roll out and the progress of the technologies at the current time is simple reckless.
Alternative energy sources can and will be developed in the future with the same thing that has been successful for American since our inception. Ingenuity, hard work, and within the framework of the free market. Democrats have long since claimed that they want to help the average American and decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their callous interference into the auto industry has cost the jobs they now claim were somehow "stolen" by other nations. They caused this to happen by interfering with the free market. Americans will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars as the price of gas naturally rises. To force this process to occur faster than it normally would occur retards the system and causes damages.
While I in no way mean to disparage the burgeoning and promising technologies of tomorrow and I encourage their growth, to apply a socialist style of tax on the oil companies and cause an artificial rise in prices for every single American is indefensible. While the economy is growing at a clip slightly above 0% (no, it's not a recession) it is incredulous that the Democrats would pursue a tax raise and cause record high prices of gas to go even higher. To help rectify the situation providing some more oil and natural gas licenses in domestic territories as well as allowing refineries to be constructed would be most beneficial. Additional tax breaks should be given to the developers of cleaner, more efficient technologies if the Democrats truly wish to allow for greater growth in these new technologies, not inefficient subsides in the form of taking from the oil companies according to their ability and giving it to Al Gore's investment portfolio according to their needs, ala Karl Marx. However, low tax rates, not playing class warfare, and being pro-growth are not the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. I would like to ask you to keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg should the Democrats win the election. At that point, any entity, business, or private, making any sort of profit and having any extra money in their pockets will be fair game for the Democrats to attempt to pick clean. Remember this well come November.
-Caomhin
1. Levy's a tax on single industry by $18 billion dollars.
2. Is a transfer tax to inefficient sector of the energy industry ("alternative sources") which are more than capable of making advances on their own within the free market. Consider this article to from IBDeditorials.com, the first few sentences sum up the bio-diesel industry extremely well:
In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.
Stick around for the part about how much higher in carbon emissions it is in comparison to oil.
3. Completely irresponsible, especially when the reason that the Democrats give for their need to raise taxes on oil is due to "record oil prices and gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles." So raising taxes on oil companies and effectively further increasing the price of gas and heating oil as well as plastics, etc will somehow be good for the economy? It will be good during an economically mild environment to punish a successful industry and punish consumers by artificially raising prices even further? Astonishing. Please reference the previous post about the Democrats' need for economic woes for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the American citizens.
4. Further expansion on my point about the negative impact it will have on consumers and investors is that a raise in taxes on the oil industry, in which many, many workers, from the bottom on up, have investments in their 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. This will negatively impact the bottom line on everyone from workers to the industry itself.
5. Jim McDermott (D-WA) calls the tax bracket that the oil companies are in a "subsidy". Interesting where he and the other Democrats fail to leave out the part where the world-wide effective tax rate on oil companies was 37% in 2006 compared to 35% in 2001, which is above the top US corporate tax bracket of 35% as it is (statistics from Energy Information Administration's Annual Financial Reporting System). Tax rates above even the tax rate can in no way be qualified as a "subsidy."
6. The House Democrats are essentially attacking the Oil industry in order to give a kick back to their friends who have undoubtedly invested heavily in alternative energy sources, while attempting to villainize a sector of our economy vital to our economic health and national security in an attempt to further their class warfare rhetoric.
I'm not basing alternative energy as a means to bring more stability to the energy market, but the Democrats are transparent in the effort to produce energy at home, they simply do not want that either. Refinery capacity remains a serious issue for our nation. The Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to build new refineries to help provide the energy needs of our nation. In fact, as energy demand has grown over time, their interference with the free market in this area is leading directly to higher costs. Indeed, technology has greatly improved since the last time we actually built a refinery and should a new one be built, then these the new plants would be much more efficient and safer than existing facilities.
Opposing the exploration and drilling of areas close to home is another example of the Democrats are lying about their desire to have our national security protected by providing for the production of our energy needs within our soil. Natural gas and coal are plentiful in this country and one of the most promising technologies that results in, ahem, "cleaner" energy is liquefied coal, something they will not fully support either. Ethanol has proven to be inefficient as an energy source, and even if the Democrats were serious about that, then where is the drum beating to eliminate the tariffs from ethanol imported from Brazil? Even now, as the price of wheat and corn rises to record highs, we are not hearing the Democrats decry the evils of farm subsidies as this is one of the large organizations that help control the Democratic Party.
Nuclear is another area where the Democrats show their true colors on the energy policy. We have not built a reactor in quite a long time, despite the fact that the technological advances are far greater since the 1970s and the technology can be rolled out rapidly and would further help the economy in utilizing plutonium sources within our shores. They constantly use fear tactics with regard to nuclear energy to discourage its usage.
With regard to wind and solar these are only regional fixes, not national. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow it would benefit Alaska (of which some parts do not have sunlight for very long periods of time) to use solar as opposed to oil and natural gas, of which it is bountiful. Over time these technologies will be improved and become an integral part of our economy and infrastructure, however, to lie to the American people about the speed of the roll out and the progress of the technologies at the current time is simple reckless.
Alternative energy sources can and will be developed in the future with the same thing that has been successful for American since our inception. Ingenuity, hard work, and within the framework of the free market. Democrats have long since claimed that they want to help the average American and decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their callous interference into the auto industry has cost the jobs they now claim were somehow "stolen" by other nations. They caused this to happen by interfering with the free market. Americans will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars as the price of gas naturally rises. To force this process to occur faster than it normally would occur retards the system and causes damages.
While I in no way mean to disparage the burgeoning and promising technologies of tomorrow and I encourage their growth, to apply a socialist style of tax on the oil companies and cause an artificial rise in prices for every single American is indefensible. While the economy is growing at a clip slightly above 0% (no, it's not a recession) it is incredulous that the Democrats would pursue a tax raise and cause record high prices of gas to go even higher. To help rectify the situation providing some more oil and natural gas licenses in domestic territories as well as allowing refineries to be constructed would be most beneficial. Additional tax breaks should be given to the developers of cleaner, more efficient technologies if the Democrats truly wish to allow for greater growth in these new technologies, not inefficient subsides in the form of taking from the oil companies according to their ability and giving it to Al Gore's investment portfolio according to their needs, ala Karl Marx. However, low tax rates, not playing class warfare, and being pro-growth are not the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. I would like to ask you to keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg should the Democrats win the election. At that point, any entity, business, or private, making any sort of profit and having any extra money in their pockets will be fair game for the Democrats to attempt to pick clean. Remember this well come November.
-Caomhin
04 January 2008
Don't Do It President Bush
News broke today that President George W. Bush is considering an economic stimulus package. It's irresponsible of President Bush to implement such a plan. President Bush has been a far superior President than Clinton ever was, in every way. To do such a thing would tarnish his record. He inherited a recession from Clinton due to tax rates that were too high and over speculations in the market. To date, he has done a pretty solid job of letting the free market reign, and his tax cuts are a major reason why a recession has not started since he took office. It's basic economics that when a tax increase is implemented against what Liberals declare as their enemies, that being corporations and high income earners, the impact is directly passes onto the middle and lower classes as they simply will not absorb a tax increase. This is an inflation tax. As the cost of production rises prices rise. The rich do not feel the impact of this, the middle and lower classes, however, most certainly do feel this impact. This basic logic is lost on the Left.
Among some of the problems with the economy today is the sub-prime market, in which irresponsible lenders, and irresponsible borrowers, have cost the economy dearly. There should be no bail out, there should be no hand-out, the market should be allowed to self correct. By providing these groups with tax funds taken from every individuals' earning, all people are learning is that irresponsible behavior will be rewarded. That's not to say some hardworking, honest people are getting beaten down, but the great majority of those in this market knew exactly what they were getting into. Another reason given is that of rising gas prices. See my previous post for my take on that.
On Wednesday, the Club for Growth release a study that proves that the market under performs when Congress is in session. A so called "stimulus" package that President Bush would put forth would do far more damage than good. First, our deficit is entirely too high, a "stimulus" package would result in a larger deficit. President Bush has done a good job of shrinking the deficit since our government began to run one due to discretionary spending due to the War on Terror. Second, government spending has a very, very, very poor record on actually being effective on what it is used for. Third, Americans need more empowerment to control their own destinies rather than less.
Unless this "stimulus" package would be a drastic reduction in government spending, coupled with a slash in tax rates, it will do far more harm than good. By reducing government spending and cutting taxes, two positives will be achieved. The first positive will be a reduction in deficit spending which will strengthen our dollar. The second positive, by cutting taxes, will be positive for the American tax payer, who is grossly overburdened, and who will have more disposable income and help offset the increase in gas prices. By restoring American citizens to a higher level of income, reducing the inflation tax, and strengthening our dollar, every one will be better off. It is completely mind boggling that President Bush would even consider for a microcosm of a second to follow a plan that would pursue the exact opposite positions and more than likely plunge us into a recession, one the media, and of course, the Liberals have been hoping for just as much as they have been hoping for Iraq to be a failure (old article, as it has long been their sick hope). Hopefully, with the same resolve that President Bush resisted the Liberal love-fest for defeat in Iraq, the Economic lunacy they are seeking will be avoided and turned into a great victory for America.
-Caomhin
Among some of the problems with the economy today is the sub-prime market, in which irresponsible lenders, and irresponsible borrowers, have cost the economy dearly. There should be no bail out, there should be no hand-out, the market should be allowed to self correct. By providing these groups with tax funds taken from every individuals' earning, all people are learning is that irresponsible behavior will be rewarded. That's not to say some hardworking, honest people are getting beaten down, but the great majority of those in this market knew exactly what they were getting into. Another reason given is that of rising gas prices. See my previous post for my take on that.
On Wednesday, the Club for Growth release a study that proves that the market under performs when Congress is in session. A so called "stimulus" package that President Bush would put forth would do far more damage than good. First, our deficit is entirely too high, a "stimulus" package would result in a larger deficit. President Bush has done a good job of shrinking the deficit since our government began to run one due to discretionary spending due to the War on Terror. Second, government spending has a very, very, very poor record on actually being effective on what it is used for. Third, Americans need more empowerment to control their own destinies rather than less.
Unless this "stimulus" package would be a drastic reduction in government spending, coupled with a slash in tax rates, it will do far more harm than good. By reducing government spending and cutting taxes, two positives will be achieved. The first positive will be a reduction in deficit spending which will strengthen our dollar. The second positive, by cutting taxes, will be positive for the American tax payer, who is grossly overburdened, and who will have more disposable income and help offset the increase in gas prices. By restoring American citizens to a higher level of income, reducing the inflation tax, and strengthening our dollar, every one will be better off. It is completely mind boggling that President Bush would even consider for a microcosm of a second to follow a plan that would pursue the exact opposite positions and more than likely plunge us into a recession, one the media, and of course, the Liberals have been hoping for just as much as they have been hoping for Iraq to be a failure (old article, as it has long been their sick hope). Hopefully, with the same resolve that President Bush resisted the Liberal love-fest for defeat in Iraq, the Economic lunacy they are seeking will be avoided and turned into a great victory for America.
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
