Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmakers Remove Roadblock to Energy Bill (but..)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 7/24/05 | H. Josef Hebert - AP

Posted on 07/24/2005 4:00:42 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Huck
The billions you want to give away come from taxpayers. Looks like you're the lib.

You need deprogramming LOL...

The billions you refer to are liability [potential] as in maybe... vapor cash... The liability is of our own choosing... We or better yet in extreme cases the enviro whackos have decided that we find value is enviromental causes and as such must add this cost into our products e.g oil...

Simply put -what you advocate here is but a mini self imposed Kyoto protocol -think about it [now tell me you are for Kyoto? LOL] -we are killing our refineries and losing US jobs so that we can safe the environment while decimating our energy infrastructure and losing US jobs... The Republicans simply were seeking a compromise position to "share" the potential risk/cost of this anti-competetive 'value added' expense... It is simple economics -more risk = more expense that share holders [people like you & I] consider when deciding yea or nay as to who gets capital...

21 posted on 07/24/2005 8:39:47 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Where does the government get its money?

Taxpayers.

Where does the oil industry get its money?

Customers.

If you can't tell the difference, you're beyond help.

22 posted on 07/25/2005 3:48:54 AM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Dude, a water company is suing an oil company, and you want the federal government to step in and give one side a few billions dollars of someone else's money. That's a fact. Deal with it. You're a socialist.


23 posted on 07/25/2005 3:50:09 AM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
The Republicans simply were seeking a compromise position to "share" the potential risk/cost of this anti-competetive 'value added' expense... It is simple economics -more risk = more expense that share holders [people like you & I] consider when deciding yea or nay as to who gets capital

This is hilarious. A so-called conservative advocating the use of billions of dollars in taxes to reduce a business risk to a particular industry, and all the while calling the taxpayers "shareholders." Remind me, what sort of dividend do the oil companies pay out to me, the taxpayer? You are so far gone in the kool aid you don't even know which way is up.

24 posted on 07/25/2005 3:54:18 AM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Huck; DBeers
You're a socialist.

Actually he's not. He's just parroting standard Republican mantra. Although it's getting difficult to differentiate the two. Of course we haven't heard much of this in over a hundred years from this side of the aisle. But look to the origins of the Republican party and their views on subsidization of business when 'necessary' for precedent. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. And people call Democrats liberal?

25 posted on 07/25/2005 6:40:15 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Customers are taxpayers.

Taxpayers are customers.

Where does the government get its money? You and me.

Where does the oil industry get its money? You and me.

Without you and me neither could exist.

If the government agreed to pay for the entire cleanup and cover any lawsuits filed, who, ultimately, would pay the costs? You and me.

If the government forced, via legislation, the oil industry to pay for the entire cleanup and cover any lawsuits filed, who, ultimately, would pay the costs? You and me.

In the second example, if you could avoid paying any money to the oil industry, yes, you would avoid paying for the cleanup and lawsuits. But that's not gonna happen since virtually anything you buy is tied, one way or another, to the oil industry. Think transportation, shipping, plastics, chemicals, etc.

26 posted on 07/25/2005 7:42:24 AM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; billbears

So let's let the market take care of it. Or is modern day conservatism now in favor of a centrally managed economy?


27 posted on 07/25/2005 10:19:04 AM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: billbears

What kills me is so called conservatives arguing in favor of the fed gov taking their tax money and giving it to someone else. That's completely nuts. You can only call someone like that a sucker.


28 posted on 07/25/2005 10:25:42 AM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Your arguments are heavy on the ad hominem and light on anything substantive...


29 posted on 07/25/2005 4:34:53 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Huck
So let's let the market take care of it. Or is modern day conservatism now in favor of a centrally managed economy?

Your reference frame is myopic -we are discussing world economics... In an isolated economy your logic might be valid; however, we compete with the world -we compete with slave & child labor -poverty wage AND other industries unencmbumered by extreme whacko environmental 'value added' government requirements that subtract from the bottom line. The pie in the sky ideology that premises your arguments is more worldly tree hugger than national republican...

30 posted on 07/25/2005 4:40:37 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billbears
...subsidization of business when 'necessary' for precedent. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. And people call Democrats liberal?

Wipe out the restrictive environmental requirements imposed by the US on only US industry and the market competion would be equal and the so called subsidization that is subject of this thread not likely even a topic of discussion...

As it stands now -we regulate an industry, tie one arm behind its back and expect it to compete with the world while we buy from the cheapest in the world --LOL -- short term we may be shouting whoopee as we save a few bucks now or patting ourselves on the back as we save a tree and other countries decimate forests; however, long term we are devastating our infrastructure, capital assets and capabilities as a nation...

31 posted on 07/25/2005 4:55:17 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
we compete with the world -we compete with slave & child labor -poverty wage AND other industries unencmbumered by extreme whacko environmental 'value added' government requirements that subtract from the bottom line.

In case no one's told you, ours is the richest economy in the world. But you are saying that in order for us to compete, the federal government should spend billions of our tax dollars (never mind we're fighting a global war with no end in sight that already has us deep into red ink) to bail out any potential liabilities that befall the oil industry? That's your position?

32 posted on 07/25/2005 5:01:29 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DBeers; billbears
As it stands now -we regulate an industry, tie one arm behind its back and expect it to compete with the world

Therefore, says DBeers, let's use billions of dollars of taxpayer money (that we don't even have, by the way) to provide liability coverage, free of charge, to the oil industry. How does that grab you? Have I lost my mind, billbears? Is this conservatism?

33 posted on 07/25/2005 5:03:42 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Huck

You seem to effectively argue with yourself quite well -LOL... Try refrencing some of what I post and then reply with some ideas of your own maybe... It may be entertaing to mischaracterize my comments and then ridicule them -however, this is not DU -get with the oprogram...


34 posted on 07/25/2005 5:26:53 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: narby

Yeah...liberals are loving to sue the companies that are doing what they TOLD them to do. I feel for those companies


35 posted on 07/28/2005 3:02:36 AM PDT by madison46 (Would Dems in 1904 be running on ideas from 1835? That's what they do now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson