The setup:
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) indicated Monday that GOP senators will hold firm against any effort to pass anything besides the energy bill.Meaning they'll filibuster any bill that isn't the energy bill.
And the response? From the Huffingtonpost:
Democratic leadership, initially furious over the obstructionism, is now calling their bluff. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last night introduced a Department of Defense Authorization bill that would, among other things, include a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel; major funding increases for research into traumatic brain injury treatment and troop suicide prevention efforts; $26 billion for the Defense Health Program, and $500 million for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. A vote could come as early as tonight.And so what happened?
39 Republicans voted against cloture and voted against the 3.9% pay increase for military personnel.
When given a choice between voting for a pay increase for the troops or for greater access (and profits) to the oil companies, they (of course) voted with the oil companies. Way to go, Republicans! Way to show the world your priorities!
32 comments:
More profits for the oil companies or for Middle East dictators.
Guess which one the Nation reading independent chooses.
John K: Two separate issues. Odd how the Democrats always use the military to hide behind. Especially when they refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance and refer them as "Murderers and Killers".
John K, do you have quote from Harry Reid where he says our soldiers are "Murderers and Killers"? From Nancy Pelosi? From Obama? From John Kerry? From any elected official?
Meanwhile, the Seattle Times had a story Wednesday about how the Republicans had blocked a vote on tax credits for renewable energy sources. Exactly who is trying to extend our use of oil, to keep the Middle Eastern dictators happy?
Seattle Times story
John K: Sure do. Just check the Senate record of Durbin and Reid and Schumer. Then go check the comments by Pelosi and Murtha. You are aware that Murtha has yet to acknowledge his false statements about Haditha even though not one conviction has occurred. LOL LOL Man are you a loser!
Ed--Drill in ANWR and get the environmental wackos off the back of the oil industry and turn them lose in the Gulf of Mexico. Then ED, open up the shale oil. The 10 year line is false and the left, after being called on it, has reduced the time frame to 8 years which is also false. The actual time is 8 months if infrastructure is in place up to 18 months without infrastructure and then max of 6 years with new exploration.
Maybe the 10 year timeline is false, I'm not an oil engineer. I suspect some oil would come out sooner. But how long does it last? And at what price?
We've been down this road before, thirty years ago. We had an oil price spike in the mid seventies, we started conserving in 1974 and by 1984 we were successful. Successful in the sense that our efforts at driving less and driving slower, and requiring cars have better mileage was enough to break the OPEC cartel’s discipline, and the price of oil tumbled back down. What we *didn’t* do is invest in mass transit (not permanently anyway), we didn’t invest in solar and in wind power. Instead in the 80’s we started driving faster, we started building bigger cars with bigger engines and SUV’s. You do realize that the Clinton administration (and a Republican Congress) gave a 100% tax credit, up to $25,000, to small businesses that bought SUV’s weighing over 6,000 pounds. Can’t really get a luxury SUV for 25 grand, but I’ll bet some farmers really went for that. But President Bush decided America’s small businesses needed more, so he proposed raising the tax write off to $75,000 in 2003. The Republican Congress did him one better and raised it to $100,000. All those “small business” lawyers and doctors (a whole bunch of incorporated partnerships) rushed out to buy Hummers, Navigators and Expeditions. You can accuse the Democrats of causing the high gas prices all you want, but the American people know the truth.
The OCS and the ANWR are only going to last maybe ten years (at our present rate of consumption) and they will not provide enough oil that we can stop importing it. I don’t know how long the oil shale will last, but I don’t think it’s going to be cheap. But when all the domestic oil is gone, what happens then? What are you doing *now *to make sure our oil lasts? Are you driving 55? Driving a smaller car? Using a non-gas powered mower? Taking the bus? Riding a bike to work?
And as for Democratic elected officials calling our troops killers, I asked if you had a quote. I meant do you have a web link to your quote? I already ran a Google search on “Murderers and Killers” and found nothing from an elected official. But you want me to go through the Senate record. Do you even have a link for that?
And even still, why are the Republicans stonewalling a defense appropriation? Why do the Republicans hate the troops?
John K: Now, does anyone think I am going to be heating my home next winter with wind power or solar power? Or power my car with electricity? Or for that matter within the next 10 years? So the left offers the solution that I should endure high gas prices until the alternative energies come on line at an affordable cost. Even if ANWR etc takes 10 years, there will be no alternative solution for more than 10 years.
However, the liberals, if they were really serious, can begin to save oil this month. Just make a deal with the local farmer and heat the house with dung. Cow dung, horse dung, pig dung. Store it in the basement, cook your food over it, yummmmm. And it just adds that outdoor aroma to the family sitting room.
Drill now to bridge the gap between alternative energy and gas. Drill thru the head of a polar bear to get the price below $4 a gallon.
John K: Has any liberal ever noticed the astromonical costs of alternative energy? These energy sources and the technology are priced way out of the range of people the left professes to champion. When I can replace my gas powered water heater with a solar powered water heater that is cheaper in replacement costs than I will surrender.
No link, eh?
Do you heat your home with oil? Do you power your lights with oil? I don't know the pace in which solar or wind power could come online. And it would be easy for me to blame the Republicans by saying they controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006, and did nothing about getting us ready for this energy crisis. But of course the Democrats did nothing before that.
Still, fossil fuels are not renewable. And they get more expensive as they run out, because we always get the easy stuff first. You talk about bridging the gap, yet the Republicans keep blocking tax credits for solar and wind and showering the record profit making oil industry with billions in subsidies. Not even trying to bring solar and wind power into the grid means the US will go dark someday, and sometime before that we will go bankrupt.
Yes, those stupid latte-sipping Democrats with their solar panels and Ed Begley Jr golf carts. The only thing dumber would be having no long range plan. By the way, what's the Republican's long range plan? Take over the world?
John K: Uh Ed do your own research or call Rep. Murtha's office.
John K: No actually the Democrats have the long range plan of taking over the world. Ask George Soros and his moveon.org which is funding Jason Altmire.
They are discovering new sources of oil each year. And until you can sell me a car for $12,000, which is powered by electricity and can have a range of 850 miles, oil is still the answer.
John K: Lastly, Ed, yes I do heat my home with gas. Which comes from the ground. And the electricity comes from coal powered machinery. Coal comes from the ground. Sheesh, must I education every liberal here.
So John K, first, if you make the quote, you must provide the link. If it’s real, prove it. If you made it up, apologize.
Second, if you make an accusation, at least make it a credible one. The Democrats are trying to take over the world? And they will tell me so if I but "Ask George Soros and his moveon.org which is funding Jason Altmire."
As for the electric car, you're right, there is no $12,000 electric car with a range of 850 miles. Actually, I don't believe there is a gas powered car with that kind of range, at least not at $12,000. Which car is that? I'd be very interested.
Electric cars have largely been ignored by Congress, and to some extent discouraged by the big three automakers. Specifically in the ‘90’s, GM made a lease-able electric car (the EV-1) to meet California's specifications, and then lobbied California, got them to change their specs, and cancelled the leases. You can read more about the EV-1, it’s up to 150 mile range and GM’s early hybrid prototypes yielding ranges over 350 or 550 miles at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1. That’s called a link.
I’m not going to mention Tesla because they still have to do some work to prove they can mass produce an electric car. GM probably can mass produce the Volt (which will actually be a hybrid of sorts), but it remains to be seen whether the battery technology will be there.
If Congress starts providing tax incentives for electric car developers, we may see some more progress. But the Republicans keep blocking subsidies for solar and wind power developers, much less electric car research. Because they have no long range plan.
Lastly, John K, as you say, you heat your house with (natural) gas. And light it with coal. Same as me. You do not heat your house with oil. So heating my house with dung would save oil how? One of the points of bringing solar and wind power online is to supplement the electric grid if electric powered vehicles are available. If, somehow, we do switch to electric vehicles, the new strain on the electric grid will become an issue. But we’ll ask farmer John to save you some dung, so you can do your part.
Lastly, about your comment “Sheesh, must I education every liberal here”. Res ipsa loquitur.
If we poured as much money into developing alternative energy as we have in handouts to Big Oil, alternative energy wouldn't be nearly as costly as it is.
Now, of course, John K. is lying or, at least, expecting everyone to take the hook from the line of b.s. he's spinning, a line that, not coincidentally, leads straight back to the mouth of Big Oil. Perhaps he's even foolish enough to believe that the huge energy conglomerates really do have his best interest at heart and not simply their profit margins.
He's also forgotten a fundamental principle of market economics, namely, that affordability is proportional to availability, ie, the more available alternative energy becomes, the cheaper it will cost.
Now, it's just not true to say that alternative energy is ten years away, unless all those wind farms, solar panels and hydroelectric dams in use are just a figment of our collective imagination. Why usage is not more widespread is a simple matter of "following the money."
After all, who has the most to lose from the ability of people to power their own homes with solar cells and wind turbines? The idea of not only cheap but essentially free energy scares the hell out of anyone and everyone associated with Big Oil, utility companies and other energy entities(such as coal, nuclear, etc.). These people simply aren't going to let someone ruin their good deal, ie, fleecing every last one of us for every cent they can!
So, from the conservatives, we hear nothing but a lot of handwringing and excuses as to why we just can't do it and a lot of b.s. about how the only way to become a society weened off of fossil fuels is to continue to expand our use of fossil fuels!
Just testing.
Let oil get more expensive. Eventually, the price will be too hard for the market to bear. At that point, consumers will really conserve, and producers/investors will put capital into alternatives. Necessity is the mother of invention, and scarcity drives the market to adapt. If alternative energies are really that great, let some rich liberals invest in developing them. Stop trying to pick taxpayers' pockets to subsidize a premature market.
Oops. I meant "high", but I suppose high prices are hard to bear. ;)
I like Eric's libertarian approach to a certain extent. The problem is that it is not politically possible. The government is going to spend money to either subsidize big oil or alternative energy. That is the political reality. If we did do it Eric's way, the market would solve the problem. We are way past peak US oil production and the world peak may have arrived as well.
The projected quantity of oil that could be found off-shore (unleased portion) has been estimated at about a 2-year supply for domestic consumption. That is, if we could magically have it all in a big tank tomorrow, we would burn through the whole thing in just 2 years. Since the oil companies will only extract the easiest to get supplies, we are probably arguing over a 6-month supply at best.
The point is, regardless of who wins this debate, the drilling solution will not solve the problem. It is pure smokescreen.
"We are way past peak US oil production and the world peak may have arrived as well."
I don't mean to be deliberately and gratuitously contrary, but haven't folks been making that argument for a hundred years? It seems that whenever that claim is made it's followed by innovations that change the rate of consumption or the ability to drill for oil that was previously unattainable.
"Well, at his press conference this week, President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. Democrats said it wouldn't do any good, because it wouldn't produce oil for ten years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago."
— Jay Leno, The Tonight Show
;)
Fair enough Eric. Good Leno joke as well.
However, if we are using 20 million barrels a day and the offshore drilling can net a max of 16 Billion (if we get it all) it still works out to 800 days of use. (Basically 2 years)
Also, US peak came by in the '70s at about 7 Million barrels a day. We are down to 5 Million barrels a day now. Even if we drill everywhere possible we will still just be treading water while the existing fields are used up. We have been in oil decline for a long time now.
We have three choices:
1. Get more oil
2. Conserve (We could cut usage by 75% to be independent. – Not very likely)
3. Aggressively pursue renewable sources of energy
We can do all three but eventually we will be stuck with just #3. Why not start now? (After all, the sun radiates us with more energy in a day than we use in a whole year!)
Number 3 should have happened 10 years ago (along with serious mileage requirments for U.S. vehicles and not launching useless wars based on lies). With about 1/5th of the investment that's been put into Iraq -- and probably less because a serious investment by government would have spurred at least matching, if not greater funds from the private sector -- there would likely be a number of alternative, renewable, sustainable energy alternatives entering late stages of research or even coming online for domestic use.
But who would want that? I mean, as our criminal vice president has noted, conservation is a nice virtue, but it doesn't make good energy policy.
John K: Except we did not launch a useless war based on lies.
leno is an asshole. his jokes are stoopid.
and john... you are delusional. the iraq war is soley based on lies and fear mongering.
John K: What lies, that Saddam Hussein was committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs? That Saddam was committing ecological damage to the marsh by daming the rivers? That Saddam was not torturing his own people for offensives like losing a soccer game? That Saddam was paying Palestinian terrorists $25,000 per person provided they blow themselves up along with some Jews? Etc. Etc. Oh those lies.
OK, here is how I see it.
The Republicans have successfully won the argument to drill or not to drill. 2/3 of the population wants to drill even though only half think it will make a difference. I think it is good old-fashioned American pragmatism. "It can't hurt so let's try it".
Now comes part two of the debate (if the democrats are up to it!). It is time to launch the energy Apollo project. It is time to make a big push for renewable energy. If Republicans kill it, then the argument will be that they are in the back pocket of big oil. The American people will back it again. Once again, "It can't hurt so let's try it."
By the way, Leno is funny as hell. The joke makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time……
What-the-fuck-ever, John K.
And, of course, the reasons you list were the reasons given preceding the invasion, huh? Or did we all just mass hallucinate the President and Rice talking about "mushroom clouds" and Powell waving a mock vial of Anthrax in everyone's collective face at the UN?
Ecological damage??? I'm sure conservatives like yourself are very concerned about that, seeing that your ilk has consistenly fought for the "right" of corporations to pollute. You certainly get all red in the face when anyone attempts to hold them accountable for the messes they make.
Imprisoning soccer players??? And yet the Republicans' best friends sit in the Saudi palace ruling a kingdom that won't let women drive cars, believes in public execution and cuts people's hands off for stealing...you're so consistent! Nevermind any number of dictators we support, have supported and will, sadly, continue to support in the future.
I suppose if conservatives such as yourself were so concerned with people like Saddam Hussein, we'd all have been better served if said conservatives hadn't spent most of the 80's arming him with weapons. Frankly, I don't think you're allowed to be so smug when it's really all the fault of Republicans for propping him up and increasing his power.
Seems to me that being "apologetic" is more in order.
don't forget those aluminum tubes and the mobile weapons labs. Those were facts, damn it, facts!
John K: Actually they were some of reasons we listed prior to the invasion. You left wingers are the ones only focusing on one issue. We also listed things like he was destabilizing the region. Terrorizing various ethnic groups in his population. As well as stealing money from the food for oil program to fund his lavish lifestyle.
Yet the left continues to defend Saddam. Must be because he and Obama share a similar name. LOL
what's with the "WE LISTED" crap??? are you now a part of the bush administration???
WMD's are the only given reason for the invasion. anything we've been told since march 2003 is pure CYA bullshit.
John K: Nope, there were 14 reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. These reasons were clearly listed in the State of the Union speech in Jan 2003. If you didn't pay attention cathcatz don't feel bad. Only 5 Democratic Senators actually read the NIE about the situation. Yet they all voted on it. Democrats and brains, two words not to be used in the same phrase.
Post a Comment