[tvtimeout]

Here is one for the future of oil, but hey bless their hearts they are struggling?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/2011/03/17/oi...ote-libya/


Here is a question though, if the market says people are frustrated with high gas prices, would there not be something better, to come along and to sweep up the market?


If you say yes, then why has it not been invented? Maybe it could have been haulted by some government agency set up by the evil left, or is it the right... I get both of them confussed.

[Hoot Gibson]

http://sovereign-investor.com/2011/01/17...-are-here/

How about these guys?

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/pages/2...02-01.aspx


These guys? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193682,00.html

Granted a little older none the less proves the point... Oil companies are just fine.

I see nothing that refutes the points that I made in this five-year old article. Nothing about subsidies and no mention of profit margins. Large energy companies are public corporations and their financial statements are available to anybody who wants to examine them. The media rarely mentions the profit margins that these companies make because they prefer demonizing them by emphasizing the amount of profits while ignoring the amount of expenditures required to make those profits.

So far, you are o-fer. Do you want to try again?

[tvtimeout]

A subsidy is a payment from the government to an individual or a company. Allowing a business to deduct business expenses is not a subsidy but the NYT portrayed it as such. If you post a similarly inaccurately headlined news release from the Heritage Foundation, that would not make a false assertion true.

I guess you got me http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/0...-subsidies


Because government does not hand out money directly to a company. Instead, they give tax breaks, which is not exactly the dollar bills that are in my pocket right now.

However, can I get a tax break for driving my car without it being a business expense? I guess not, but I will pay taxes to use their oil on which they found because they got a tax break, seems fair to me!

[tvtimeout]

I see nothing that refutes the points that I made in this five-year old article. Nothing about subsidies and no mention of profit margins. Large energy companies are public corporations and their financial statements are available to anybody who wants to examine them. The media rarely mentions the profit margins that these companies make because they prefer demonizing them by emphasizing the amount of profits while ignoring the amount of expenditures required to make those profits.

So far, you are o-fer. Do you want to try again?

I guess you got me again, I feel so bad that they turned as you said somewhere between 5% to 7% profit margin, which just happened to equal the highest profits they ever had, in the billions of dollars. But to make me feel better about it, I will give them tax breaks, make sure they pad the pockets of likes Mcconnel and Reid, and continue to barely squeek by, but I will drive my nice van and just hope I don't run out of gas.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is one for the future of oil, but hey bless their hearts they are struggling?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/2011/03/17/oi...ote-libya/


Here is a question though, if the market says people are frustrated with high gas prices, would there not be something better, to come along and to sweep up the market?


If you say yes, then why has it not been invented? Maybe it could have been haulted by some government agency set up by the evil left, or is it the right... I get both of them confussed.

The only government conspiracy at work is Obama and the liberal Democrats' determination to block as much oil and coal development in this country as possible. That, and the uncertainty about the future is largely responsible for the volatility in oil prices.

If the federal government loosened the reins on businesses in this country, energy prices would plummet. Many companies lost fortunes leasing up oil shale reserves and investing in syn-fuels in the 70s, when the policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter (and Carter's foreign policy failures) created artificial shortages in our energy supply. Reagan took office, and within three years, gasoline prices returned to normal.

Governments create zero wealth. Governments consume and destroy wealth. You seem to think that the federal government can simply legislate prosperity and cheap alternative energy into existence. They can't.

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess you got me again, I feel so bad that they turned as you said somewhere between 5% to 7% profit margin, which just happened to equal the highest profits they ever had, in the billions of dollars. But to make me feel better about it, I will give them tax breaks, make sure they pad the pockets of likes Mcconnel and Reid, and continue to barely squeek by, but I will drive my nice van and just hope I don't run out of gas.

So, reading between the sarcastic lines, you believe that a 7 percent profit margin is too high, correct? If so, then that is sad.

Record profits posted by American companies used to be met with joy. Companies profit and their employees prosper and the roles of the unemployed shrink. Now, record profits reported by American corporations are met by liberals with disappointment. No wonder this country is in decline.

[tvtimeout]

Also, just want to point out even though I disagree with you on this subject, I respect your opinion.


You must understand I don't like the right or left, both have imprisoned my people here in S.KY. So, if I come across to you as left or right, please understand that I am neither.

[tvtimeout]

So, reading between the sarcastic lines, you believe that a 7 percent profit margin is too high, correct? If so, then that is sad.

Record profits posted by American companies used to be met with joy. Companies profit and their employees prosper and the roles of the unemployed shrink. Now, record profits is met by liberals with disappointment. No wonder this country is in decline.

Agreed with everything you have just said, so why give tax breaks? That is what I am angry about if anything, (which I am not angry, just enjoy the discussion) I don't understand why it is the governments role to give out tax breaks to this place or that place. I think the government should stay out of it totally and let the market work, but we have politicians whose pockets get heavier with little groups (can not think of the name) on both side of the issue.

Thus a solution for the regular american will never be found.

[tvtimeout]

Hoot,

I hope you have a great evening and I look forward to reading your response.

[Hoot Gibson]

Also, just want to point out even though I disagree with you on this subject, I respect your opinion.


You must understand I don't like the right or left, both have imprisoned my people here in S.KY. So, if I come across to you as left or right, please understand that I am neither.

Whether people are liberal or conservative has no bearing on my respect for them. (No offense, but in general I have less respect for political moderates who I have found are generally less well informed on important issues than those at either end of the political spectrum.) I like people who are willing to take a stand and defend it, whether I agree with them or not. Moderates usually lack the passion, commitment, and core values to lead effectively in elected office.

In my first career, I worked as a mining engineer for coal subsidiary of a large oil company and then later for an independent coal company. I am a little out of touch with the industry now but I have a pretty good understanding about how the economy and government policies affect energy costs.

Under normal circumstances, coal and oil prices drop during recessions. Under normal circumstances, jobs are created in large numbers following recessions. Having an incompetent, inexperienced president is not a normal situation. Hopefully, we will be able to recover from the damage to the economy that four years of "change" will have done by 2012.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot,

I hope you have a great evening and I look forward to reading your response.

Same to you. Thank you for the vigorous debate.

[tvtimeout]

Whether people are liberal or conservative has no bearing on my respect for them. (No offense, but in general I have less respect for political moderates who I have found are generally less well informed on important issues than those at either end of the political spectrum.) I like people who are willing to take a stand and defend it, whether I agree with them or not. Moderates usually lack the passion, commitment, and core values to lead effectively in elected office.

In my first career, I worked as a mining engineer for coal subsidiary of a large oil company and then later for an independent coal company. I am a little out of touch with the industry now but I have a pretty good understanding about how the economy and government policies affect energy costs.

Under normal circumstances, coal and oil prices drop during recessions. Under normal circumstances, jobs are created in large numbers following recessions. Having an incompetent, inexperienced president is not a normal situation. Hopefully, we will be able to recover from the damage to the economy that four years of "change" will have done by 2012.

I am not a moderate, nor do I have a lack of passion. I just think that both sides (democrates and republicans are both wrong) If that puts me in the middle that puts me in the middle.

A simple economic equation if demand is down and supply is up, what will happen to the price on any item?

Why has it not happened to oil? The so called market is manipulated, because of things like government interference on both sides. Tax Breaks from the right, can not drill, dig, whatever, from the left. I again say none of the above should happen. I also think if people believe that a private market works, then keep it private. Let research and finding better ways of doing things, which has happened all of my life.

For the life of me, I could not figure out why though? People also complain about high gas prices, high electric bills, so why hasn't anyone done anything about it. I don't believe it is the lack of education or technology, we sent a man to the moon, with less computing power then a calculator (what a student would use in a Calculus) so I am really talking about graphing calculators. People in their basic nature are greedy, so the lack of motivation can not be the answer.

However, government regulations and new things in the industry can stop anything in its tracks. What else could it be?

The coal unions would be ticked off because their people would not get to work, which would be less money going to that party (aka Democrats).

The owners of the coal mines, gas companies would be out of the loop and would lose money, and could even go under, which would be less money going to that party (republicans).

So, why would either side want to step in? The answer in my estimation is that they wouldn't. Yes, they give the dog and pony show, but in the end nothing changes, and we are still using fuels found at the beginning of the last one hundred years, people complain about prices.

Progress is stopped, but if you believe in "change" or you believe in "mission accomplished", you are believing in the one and the same.

I would like to hear why this conclusion is incorrect?

[Hoot Gibson]

I am not a moderate, nor do I have a lack of passion. I just think that both sides (democrates and republicans are both wrong) If that puts me in the middle that puts me in the middle.

A simple economic equation if demand is down and supply is up, what will happen to the price on any item?

Why has it not happened to oil? The so called market is manipulated, because of things like government interference on both sides. Tax Breaks from the right, can not drill, dig, whatever, from the left. I again say none of the above should happen. I also think if people believe that a private market works, then keep it private. Let research and finding better ways of doing things, which has happened all of my life.

For the life of me, I could not figure out why though? People also complain about high gas prices, high electric bills, so why hasn't anyone done anything about it. I don't believe it is the lack of education or technology, we sent a man to the moon, with less computing power then a calculator (what a student would use in a Calculus) so I am really talking about graphing calculators. People in their basic nature are greedy, so the lack of motivation can not be the answer.

However, government regulations and new things in the industry can stop anything in its tracks. What else could it be?

The coal unions would be ticked off because their people would not get to work, which would be less money going to that party (aka Democrats).

The owners of the coal mines, gas companies would be out of the loop and would lose money, and could even go under, which would be less money going to that party (republicans).

So, why would either side want to step in? The answer in my estimation is that they wouldn't. Yes, they give the dog and pony show, but in the end nothing changes, and we are still using fuels found at the beginning of the last one hundred years, people complain about prices.

Progress is stopped, but if you believe in "change" or you believe in "mission accomplished", you are believing in the one and the same.

I would like to hear why this conclusion is incorrect?

Unreasonable regulations and high taxes drive the cost of the regulated commodities up and slow economies down. Consider which party has been in control of the states that suffered the most during the recession and are continue to suffer. California, Michigan, Illinois - blue states that refuse to pare government expenditures. These are also the states whose answer to declining economies is to raise taxes and drive more businesses away.

The global recession and sluggish economy should have held energy prices in check but under Obama and a Democratic Congress, prices have soared instead. Yet the federal agencies under Obama's control have acted to reduce domestic supplies of both coal and oil, creating great uncertainty in the market. Uncertainty invites speculation and high prices.

The fact that prices are rising demonstrates that your assertion that Republicans (despite not having control of Congress for several years) have somehow been able to give huge tax breaks to oil companies. If that had been true (a good thing, IMO), it would tend to depress prices and that has obviously not been the case.

I am a conservative - not a Republican, BTW. Too few Republicans are really fiscal conservatives. However, almost all fiscal conservatives that hold public office are Republicans, so I have pledged not to vote for any Democrats for national office. I think it would be great if our country opened up ANWR and other areas for drilling and eliminated taxes entirely on energy production for oil, natural gas, and coal sold in the US. Nothing would have a more positive impact on job creation and the GDP.

[TheRealThing]

HOOT is right. I hear the argument all the time " we have to convert to clean energy" The technologies for this so called clean energy haven't been developed yet. They will come along in time but for now, we have to ride the horse that brung us. We can't just snap our fingers and make it alright.

This world wide debate we find ourselves in regarding clean energy has its roots in the findings of the Psuedo Science know as global warming. These weather cycles we go through are natural occurances of our planet. In a nut shell, a couple bozos drill some ice cores and decide they know that CO2 caused the ice ages ( that we think we know of ) and so on and so forth and boom, global warming. Darwin found himself daydreaming on the Galapagos Islands one day, happened to see a marine iguana diving under water to eat algae on the rocks submerged by high tide. He decides out of the blue that the iguanas at one time in aeons past lived under water and just couldn't quite break the habit on eating under water and boom, the next thing you know you get the therory of evolution!

Even owing to CO2 we did get the big and little ice ages. Where were all the factories and cars that all the looneys hate so much these days for causing man such grief? One can stand around and dream up all kinds of marvelous stuff but, none of it is based in anything much more substantial than every day, run of the mill guesses. Of course we know, the planet produces the gases and other phenomima that cause everything from earth quakes to volcanos and even ice ages and global warming/cooling.

I know this a nuclear power thread but just had some thoughts about power in gereral. There is enough oil and natural gas in Alaska alone to fuel this nation for 150 years by all accounts. World economists are all ashutter with fear, diving stocks, ultra high energy costs and all manner of malady, and the USA is among them. We have on our own soil enough resources to provide jobs and an economic surge that likely would heal all wounds and yet, are we drilling? No we're too concerned that a Caribou might have a bad day. The lunacy by which we make decisions and policy these days defys logic. It's more like a religion than anything else I can think of to describe it. You kind of just have to go by faith cause understanding it by any other means is not going to happen. Let alone trying to justify the whole impossible mess.

If the world stands long enough, and I doubt that it will but, can you imagine how history will judge the greatest nation of all time? They lost their way somehow and were too afraid to drill for oil, our nations life blood, because of concern for Caribou? Consider the snail darter. The little fish that the looney evironmentalists out in California are so worried about. We are actually holding back irrigation water on the Colorado River that waters the fertile valleys of that region because of concern for the well being of a few little fish. Supposedly folks are starving in our nation every day. None the less, the amount vegetables grown there each year is being cut to a fractioin of the possible yield because of the possible detriment to the snail darter. So everybody in this country can just do without vegies untill and if we get this all worked out for a few little fish that will probably do just fine anyway. Not to mention the econimic depression that whole farming region is enduring through loss of revenue for an industry that supports everything from vegetable pickers to truckers.

A one word analysis, UNBELIEVABLE!

[vundy33]

I have a Marine buddy that is flying rescue missions in Japan. Before U.S. forces were told to get out of the 20 mile zone around the plant, he said the nuclear levels were extremely high in and directly around the plant.

For now, most of Japan is safe though. Hopefully it stays this way. I can't stand all the talk on the news about it, good lord.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is a very interesting article about pebble reactors. China plans to build 30 pebble reactors in the next 10 years and "possibly hundreds" by 2050. Cheap, safe energy is absolutely necessary for a strong economy. 30 years ago, I never dreamed that China would one day have the world's strongest economy but now it looks almost inevitable

How to make a nuclear reactor that can't have a meltdown

[tvtimeout]

HOOT is right. I hear the argument all the time " we have to convert to clean energy" The technologies for this so called clean energy haven't been developed yet. They will come along in time but for now, we have to ride the horse that brung us. We can't just snap our fingers and make it alright.

This world wide debate we find ourselves in regarding clean energy has its roots in the findings of the Psuedo Science know as global warming. These weather cycles we go through are natural occurances of our planet. In a nut shell, a couple bozos drill some ice cores and decide they know that CO2 caused the ice ages ( that we think we know of ) and so on and so forth and boom, global warming. Darwin found himself daydreaming on the Galapagos Islands one day, happened to see a marine iguana diving under water to eat algae on the rocks submerged by high tide. He decides out of the blue that the iguanas at one time in aeons past lived under water and just couldn't quite break the habit on eating under water and boom, the next thing you know you get the therory of evolution!

Even owing to CO2 we did get the big and little ice ages. Where were all the factories and cars that all the looneys hate so much these days for causing man such grief? One can stand around and dream up all kinds of marvelous stuff but, none of it is based in anything much more substantial than every day, run of the mill guesses. Of course we know, the planet produces the gases and other phenomima that cause everything from earth quakes to volcanos and even ice ages and global warming/cooling.

I know this a nuclear power thread but just had some thoughts about power in gereral. There is enough oil and natural gas in Alaska alone to fuel this nation for 150 years by all accounts. World economists are all ashutter with fear, diving stocks, ultra high energy costs and all manner of malady, and the USA is among them. We have on our own soil enough resources to provide jobs and an economic surge that likely would heal all wounds and yet, are we drilling? No we're too concerned that a Caribou might have a bad day. The lunacy by which we make decisions and policy these days defys logic. It's more like a religion than anything else I can think of to describe it. You kind of just have to go by faith cause understanding it by any other means is not going to happen. Let alone trying to justify the whole impossible mess.

If the world stands long enough, and I doubt that it will but, can you imagine how history will judge the greatest nation of all time? They lost their way somehow and were too afraid to drill for oil, our nations life blood, because of concern for Caribou? Consider the snail darter. The little fish that the looney evironmentalists out in California are so worried about. We are actually holding back irrigation water on the Colorado River that waters the fertile valleys of that region because of concern for the well being of a few little fish. Supposedly folks are starving in our nation every day. None the less, the amount vegetables grown there each year is being cut to a fractioin of the possible yield because of the possible detriment to the snail darter. So everybody in this country can just do without vegies untill and if we get this all worked out for a few little fish that will probably do just fine anyway. Not to mention the econimic depression that whole farming region is enduring through loss of revenue for an industry that supports everything from vegetable pickers to truckers.

A one word analysis, UNBELIEVABLE!

Two points: first I agree with you we do sit on the largest stock pile of energy in... propaine gas, we make the Saudi's look weak when we look at our stock pile of this stuff. Question: why are we not using this stuff?

Second point: In the last 35 years, we have done the following in technology, sent a man to the moon, communicate with anyone in the whole world, developed processors that pushing the bounds of physics, have smart cars... which if you believe the commericals can park on their own, developed ways to keep people alive longer, found a cure for HIV or at least made it not as fatal. In S.Ky, we have found new ways to kill eachother, with the invention of meth.

Now the reason I just pointed out all of these things, the market dictated these things. We could all agree to that point. It is my point that the market has dictated that we need newer cheaper energy, not something used over one hundred years ago. However, nothing has changed...technology has, people's greed has not. Hence the problem, a select few and it doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat is in charge and has super majority. A point that I am going to prove to Hoot in the next reply.

So the only logical conclusion is that both sides in the political process will see to it that the market can not expand, it does not matter what private enterprise comes up with an idea or not, and again I point to how Google powers their company.

So I ask again how do you explain my theory, other than I am completely nuts:Clap:!

[tvtimeout]

Unreasonable regulations and high taxes drive the cost of the regulated commodities up and slow economies down. Consider which party has been in control of the states that suffered the most during the recession and are continue to suffer. California, Michigan, Illinois - blue states that refuse to pare government expenditures. These are also the states whose answer to declining economies is to raise taxes and drive more businesses away.

The global recession and sluggish economy should have held energy prices in check but under Obama and a Democratic Congress, prices have soared instead. Yet the federal agencies under Obama's control have acted to reduce domestic supplies of both coal and oil, creating great uncertainty in the market. Uncertainty invites speculation and high prices.

The fact that prices are rising demonstrates that your assertion that Republicans (despite not having control of Congress for several years) have somehow been able to give huge tax breaks to oil companies. If that had been true (a good thing, IMO), it would tend to depress prices and that has obviously not been the case.

I am a conservative - not a Republican, BTW. Too few Republicans are really fiscal conservatives. However, almost all fiscal conservatives that hold public office are Republicans, so I have pledged not to vote for any Democrats for national office. I think it would be great if our country opened up ANWR and other areas for drilling and eliminated taxes entirely on energy production for oil, natural gas, and coal sold in the US. Nothing would have a more positive impact on job creation and the GDP.

Do you remember that six year old article printed by the "only unbias news source", and you asked me in not so many words, what in the world does this have to do with anything.

I was planning on you to make this statement sooner, but now that it is made. Who had control of both houses of congress and the President during the printing of that article. It seems to me that prices were higher then?

Now there is a logical conclusion to that, we didn't have enough oil during that time, drilling could not have been an option, the democratic party went into the white house and put a bug in G.B.'s ear. at which point they got back control.

Or it could be what I have been saying all along, republicans do not want to change the market, along with the democrats, because again of special interest groups... in my previous post, a show that there is a demand, and technology is always developed when there is a demand. So there must be something else to hinder market. It again is the only logical conclusion.

So now I have proved that when Republicans/Democrats had control of both houses and the president, nothing changes.

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you remember that six year old article printed by the "only unbias news source", and you asked me in not so many words, what in the world does this have to do with anything.

I was planning on you to make this statement sooner, but now that it is made. Who had control of both houses of congress and the President during the printing of that article. It seems to me that prices were higher then?

Now there is a logical conclusion to that, we didn't have enough oil during that time, drilling could not have been an option, the democratic party went into the white house and put a bug in G.B.'s ear. at which point they got back control.

Or it could be what I have been saying all along, republicans do not want to change the market, along with the democrats, because again of special interest groups... in my previous post, a show that there is a demand, and technology is always developed when there is a demand. So there must be something else to hinder market. It again is the only logical conclusion.

So now I have proved that when Republicans/Democrats had control of both houses and the president, nothing changes.

First of all, like I have said before - I am not a Republican. Nor was I a fan of Bush's domestic policies. However, on this issue you are dead wrong. Republicans have not had a super-majority in the Senate in my lifetime. Democrats blocked efforts by Republicans to open ANWR and other areas up to drilling throughout Bush's two terms. The prohibition on drilling there dates back to the Carter administration.

Republicans have been consistent in their advocacy of much more sensible energy plans than Democrats but they have never had the votes to move their agenda through Congress. The point that you and other moderates and liberals fail to understand is that we currently are faced with soaring energy prices in a sluggish global economy.

The damage that Obama's policies is doing to the supply of fossil fuels is long term. When the world's economy heats up, prices will rise even more rapidly and the out of control federal spending will eventually lead to a high inflation rate and sharp devaluation of the dollar relative to other major currencies.

In other words, the steps that Obama and the Democrats have taken and the ones that they advocate will make energy more expensive for American consumers and businesses relative to those in most other developed and developing countries. The government of China is taking positive steps to secure affordable energy supplies for its industrial base and our federal government is doing the opposite. The results are inevitable and extremely predictable.

[tvtimeout]

First of all, like I have said before - I am not a Republican. Nor was I a fan of Bush's domestic policies. However, on this issue you are dead wrong. Republicans have not had a super-majority in the Senate in my lifetime. Democrats blocked efforts by Republicans to open ANWR and other areas up to drilling throughout Bush's two terms. The prohibition on drilling there dates back to the Carter administration.

Republicans have been consistent in their advocacy of much more sensible energy plans than Democrats but they have never had the votes to move their agenda through Congress. The point that you and other moderates and liberals fail to understand is that we currently are faced with soaring energy prices in a sluggish global economy.

The damage that Obama's policies is doing to the supply of fossil fuels is long term. When the world's economy heats up, prices will rise even more rapidly and the out of control federal spending will eventually lead to a high inflation rate and sharp devaluation of the dollar relative to other major currencies.

In other words, the steps that Obama and the Democrats have taken and the ones that they advocate will make energy more expensive for American consumers and businesses relative to those in most other developed and developing countries. The government of China is taking positive steps to secure affordable energy supplies for its industrial base and our federal government is doing the opposite. The results are inevitable and extremely predictable.

So you do agree with me then on the point that there is a market for trying to find cheaper energy?

I agree with you on the second point: it could be argued from a purely economic standpoint that both of the two major parties contribute to this, and neither one of them are going to stop it, either be military, S.S., or Wel-fare. Period, the end.

You keep pointing to the left, proving that they do harm to our economy. I argue that both the left and the right both do harm, because they care less about the average American.

The proof is in the pudding, the last decade so the most billionaires ever in the world's history. However, the middle class american, shrinking... why, because of the policies of Bush and now Obama. Period, why is it so hard to understand that.

I could consider myself part of the tea party, but I have yet to hear one of them go after the military... why?

Instead, they will point to medicaide and S.S. and rightfully so, which makes me kind of like them.

When President Obama did the debt commission, I thought it was brilliant. You want to know why because both sides were ticked off. I thought that was the best solution for people like you and me.

But now I have gotten way off target and do appoligize for that.

So what is wrong with trying to use Propaine gas, nuclear energy instead of the other two, or use what Google is doing? I will tell you what is wrong not enough money will be made for those in charge and they would lose power over you and me.

[tvtimeout]

First of all, like I have said before - I am not a Republican. Nor was I a fan of Bush's domestic policies. However, on this issue you are dead wrong. Republicans have not had a super-majority in the Senate in my lifetime. Democrats blocked efforts by Republicans to open ANWR and other areas up to drilling throughout Bush's two terms. The prohibition on drilling there dates back to the Carter administration.

Republicans have been consistent in their advocacy of much more sensible energy plans than Democrats but they have never had the votes to move their agenda through Congress. The point that you and other moderates and liberals fail to understand is that we currently are faced with soaring energy prices in a sluggish global economy.

The damage that Obama's policies is doing to the supply of fossil fuels is long term. When the world's economy heats up, prices will rise even more rapidly and the out of control federal spending will eventually lead to a high inflation rate and sharp devaluation of the dollar relative to other major currencies.

In other words, the steps that Obama and the Democrats have taken and the ones that they advocate will make energy more expensive for American consumers and businesses relative to those in most other developed and developing countries. The government of China is taking positive steps to secure affordable energy supplies for its industrial base and our federal government is doing the opposite. The results are inevitable and extremely predictable.

You are correct that the republicans never had a super majority. In the Bush 8 years. I can admit that I am wrong.

Why do we always look to oil or coal for that matter? Why at every election cycle, we look at this issue and nothing gets done?

It is like the aboration issue, every election cycle it gets brought up and after every election it is forgotten about until the next election. Nothing gets done.

See, I believe that there is government interferance on both sides and I am still waiting to be proved that one party does not interfere with my daily life. I got a feeling I am going to be waiting a long time.

[Hoot Gibson]

So you do agree with me then on the point that there is a market for trying to find cheaper energy?

I agree with you on the second point: it could be argued from a purely economic standpoint that both of the two major parties contribute to this, and neither one of them are going to stop it, either be military, S.S., or Wel-fare. Period, the end.

You keep pointing to the left, proving that they do harm to our economy. I argue that both the left and the right both do harm, because they care less about the average American.

The proof is in the pudding, the last decade so the most billionaires ever in the world's history. However, the middle class american, shrinking... why, because of the policies of Bush and now Obama. Period, why is it so hard to understand that.

I could consider myself part of the tea party, but I have yet to hear one of them go after the military... why?

Instead, they will point to medicaide and S.S. and rightfully so, which makes me kind of like them.

When President Obama did the debt commission, I thought it was brilliant. You want to know why because both sides were ticked off. I thought that was the best solution for people like you and me.

But now I have gotten way off target and do appoligize for that.

So what is wrong with trying to use Propaine gas, nuclear energy instead of the other two, or use what Google is doing? I will tell you what is wrong not enough money will be made for those in charge and they would lose power over you and me.

There is no cheaper energy available than the sources that are being used today, so there is no "market" for developing alternative sources of energy. That market will exist when most companies conclude that energy prices, because of a diminishing supply, will rise predictably and allow alternative sources of energy to become competitive cost-wise with fossil fuels.

Our own federal government can continue to pursue ridiculous policies to make fossil fuels more expensive in our own country but all that will do is create jobs and wealth in China, India, and other countries led by people who have a better understanding of economics that Barrack Hussein Obama and those of a like mind.

Forgive me for saying so, but you sound like a Democrat trying to convince himself that there is no real difference between the two major parties. My problems with George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress was that as the years passed, they began to spend money like the Democrats before them. However, the spending done under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi dwarfed the spending sprees of any previous administration or Congress, regardless of party. Everybody who voted for Obama or any Democratic House or Senate candidate in the 2008 or 2010 election shares the blame not only for the current economic mess but for the ones that Democrats have ensured are coming our way in the not-so-distant future.

Republicans have been, and continue to be, the lesser of two evils. So far, this Congress has been a big disappointment. The cuts being pushed by Republicans and portrayed by Democrats as draconian have been little more than symbolic. Even worse, the more experienced Republicans have begun to criticize the newly seated conservatives for not silently going along with the sham. I will not be satisfied until every Republican elected to Congress is a fiscal conservative. We can no longer afford to send big spenders to Washington - and if we do this country will not survive long.

As for the debt commission, you must be kidding. Appointing a commission is almost always an act of political cowardice. Politicians appoint commissions to avoid taking action or to provide political cover for unpopular actions that they want to take.

Tell me, what actions have been taken as the result of Obama naming the commission? Did it require a commission to determine that the federal government is collecting taxes at a rate of 20 percent of GDP and spending at a rate of 23 percent of the GDP, so current and projected spending rates are unsustainable?

It is only a matter of time before the misery index return to the levels seen in the four miserable years of the Jimmy Carter administration. Even if a grown-up wins the 2012 presidential election, it is going to take many years to recover from four years of gross negligence of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

[tvtimeout]

There is a great debate on this matter on BTV bloomberg tv. It will be on at 6:00 tonight, anyway SEC game about to come on, but I will reply to your post tonight, until then go SEC!

[Old School]

I'm concerned that if we continue on our current path we will not be able to maintain our energy needs. Compounding this problem is the fact that the consumption rate of electricity continues to grow each year.

We now have a moratorium on offshore drilling, a soon to be moratorium on nuclear power, enviro's are now going to court to stop gas indusrty, and have brought a halt to coal mining permits and the construction of coal power plants. I just recently read an article where a large power company which owns several coal fired power plants said that it would not be feasible due to current or proposed federal regulation to retro fit any of their plants under a 500 MW. Basically these plants will run until the new regulation kick in and then will be closed.

The Sierra Club is currently going to court to close three coal power plants in Texas, and others around the country. Envirornmental groups are trying to shut down a proposed coal loading port in Washington that will help the Powder River Basin ship coal to China.

When will this country realize that there is no way this country can meet it's energy demands soley on wind, solar or other renewables.

[TheRealThing]

Two points: first I agree with you we do sit on the largest stock pile of energy in... propaine gas, we make the Saudi's look weak when we look at our stock pile of this stuff. Question: why are we not using this stuff?

Second point: In the last 35 years, we have done the following in technology, sent a man to the moon, communicate with anyone in the whole world, developed processors that pushing the bounds of physics, have smart cars... which if you believe the commericals can park on their own, developed ways to keep people alive longer, found a cure for HIV or at least made it not as fatal. In S.Ky, we have found new ways to kill eachother, with the invention of meth.

Now the reason I just pointed out all of these things, the market dictated these things. We could all agree to that point. It is my point that the market has dictated that we need newer cheaper energy, not something used over one hundred years ago. However, nothing has changed...technology has, people's greed has not. Hence the problem, a select few and it doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat is in charge and has super majority. A point that I am going to prove to Hoot in the next reply.

So the only logical conclusion is that both sides in the political process will see to it that the market can not expand, it does not matter what private enterprise comes up with an idea or not, and again I point to how Google powers their company.

So I ask again how do you explain my theory, other than I am completely nuts:Clap:!

Seriously, are you saying there is no market for fossil fuels? It's my belief that the day that gasoline is not readily available will mark the start of the 2nd dark age, (pun intended)

I can see it now, everything goes magically green whether the technology exists for green energy or not doesn't matter to the Hatter. Here's a list of our national weapons inventory in that bright day: solar tanks, hybrid jet fighters, wind carriers, all electric jeeps and armoured personnel carriers. Please forgive my attempt at humor. You're talking about leaping forward in time technologically to the point where only a strong imagination could even begin to dream it all up.

Reality is what we have. The green dream is fiction. To feed and house and afford the grandest life style this world has likely seen takes gas. Food production takes gas. Defense takes gas. Obviously the list is endless. Reinventing all of man's achievements on a whim is not possible. The only people that would even consider it are the idealists of the world. What would their world look like anyway? All the sandal clad gentle folk standing out on some green pasture. Smiling up at a solar powered jumbotron featuring John Lennon singing Imagine all the people living for today, nothing to live and die for? Patting themselves on the back for saving the planet? (which I do not accept as being in peril)

Sorry, give me a 69 chevelle with the open road lying before me, on the stereo Jimi Hendrix is singing All Along The Watch Tower, and I've only got a few minutes to get to work. That's okay though cause if I push it a little I can be there on time. Of course I'd have to get the little electric cars cleaned out of my grill at some point. LOL

By the way, the technology to produce and provide the existing green energy efforts is way more expensive than the fossil fuels they intend to replace.

[tvtimeout]

Seriously, are you saying there is no market for fossil fuels? It's my belief that the day that gasoline is not readily available will mark the start of the 2nd dark age, (pun intended)

I can see it now, everything goes magically green whether the technology exists for green energy or not doesn't matter to the Hatter. Here's a list of our national weapons inventory in that bright day: solar tanks, hybrid jet fighters, wind carriers, all electric jeeps and armoured personnel carriers. Please forgive my attempt at humor. You're talking about leaping forward in time technologically to the point where only a strong imagination could even begin to dream it all up.

Reality is what we have. The green dream is fiction. To feed and house and afford the grandest life style this world has likely seen takes gas. Food production takes gas. Defense takes gas. Obviously the list is endless. Reinventing all of man's achievements on a whim is not possible. The only people that would even consider it are the idealists of the world. What would their world look like anyway? All the sandal clad gentle folk standing out on some green pasture. Smiling up at a solar powered jumbotron featuring John Lennon singing Imagine all the people living for today, nothing to live and die for? Patting themselves on the back for saving the planet? (which I do not accept as being in peril)

Sorry, give me a 69 chevelle with the open road lying before me, on the stereo Jimi Hendrix is singing All Along The Watch Tower, and I've only got a few minutes to get to work. That's okay though cause if I push it a little I can be there on time. Of course I'd have to get the little electric cars cleaned out of my grill at some point. LOL

By the way, the technology to produce and provide the existing green energy efforts is way more expensive than the fossil fuels they intend to replace.

I never said that there was no demand for fossil fuels, actually I pointed out that China is what is driving the market in Eastern Kentucky. However, I did point out that oil prices are continuing to go up when the demand is down and the supply is up. I said that was against what I was taught about supply and demand, the price should fall.

[tvtimeout]

[quote=TheRealThing]Seriously, are you saying there is no market for fossil fuels? It's my belief that the day that gasoline is not readily available will mark the start of the 2nd dark age, (pun intended)

I can see it now, everything goes magically green whether the technology exists for green energy or not doesn't matter to the Hatter. Here's a list of our national weapons inventory in that bright day: solar tanks, hybrid jet fighters, wind carriers, all electric jeeps and armoured personnel carriers. Please forgive my attempt at humor. You're talking about leaping forward in time technologically to the point where only a strong imagination could even begin to dream it all up.

Reality is what we have. The green dream is fiction. To feed and house and afford the grandest life style this world has likely seen takes gas. Food production takes gas. Defense takes gas. Obviously the list is endless. Reinventing all of man's achievements on a whim is not possible. The only people that would even consider it are the idealists of the world. What would their world look like anyway? All the sandal clad gentle folk standing out on some green pasture. Smiling up at a solar powered jumbotron featuring John Lennon singing Imagine all the people living for today, nothing to live and die for? Patting themselves on the back for saving the planet? (which I do not accept as being in peril)

Sorry, give me a 69 chevelle with the open road lying before me, on the stereo Jimi Hendrix is singing All Along The Watch Tower, and I've only got a few minutes to get to work. That's okay though cause if I push it a little I can be there on time. Of course I'd have to get the little electric cars cleaned out of my grill at some point. LOL

By the way, the technology to produce and provide the existing green energy efforts is way more expensive than the fossil fuels they intend to replace.[/QUOTE]

Google might disagree with you

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/09/26/...gn-Changes

A good old private company, the model of capitalism at its finest!

[tvtimeout]

Seriously, are you saying there is no market for fossil fuels? It's my belief that the day that gasoline is not readily available will mark the start of the 2nd dark age, (pun intended)

I can see it now, everything goes magically green whether the technology exists for green energy or not doesn't matter to the Hatter. Here's a list of our national weapons inventory in that bright day: solar tanks, hybrid jet fighters, wind carriers, all electric jeeps and armoured personnel carriers. Please forgive my attempt at humor. You're talking about leaping forward in time technologically to the point where only a strong imagination could even begin to dream it all up.

Reality is what we have. The green dream is fiction. To feed and house and afford the grandest life style this world has likely seen takes gas. Food production takes gas. Defense takes gas. Obviously the list is endless. Reinventing all of man's achievements on a whim is not possible. The only people that would even consider it are the idealists of the world. What would their world look like anyway? All the sandal clad gentle folk standing out on some green pasture. Smiling up at a solar powered jumbotron featuring John Lennon singing Imagine all the people living for today, nothing to live and die for? Patting themselves on the back for saving the planet? (which I do not accept as being in peril)

Sorry, give me a 69 chevelle with the open road lying before me, on the stereo Jimi Hendrix is singing All Along The Watch Tower, and I've only got a few minutes to get to work. That's okay though cause if I push it a little I can be there on time. Of course I'd have to get the little electric cars cleaned out of my grill at some point. LOL

By the way, the technology to produce and provide the existing green energy efforts is way more expensive than the fossil fuels they intend to replace.

No market at all for alternative energy: what was I thinking?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/null/null/pc...9900050024

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuse..._a_product.

[Hoot Gibson]

[quote=TheRealThing]Seriously, are you saying there is no market for fossil fuels? It's my belief that the day that gasoline is not readily available will mark the start of the 2nd dark age, (pun intended)

I can see it now, everything goes magically green whether the technology exists for green energy or not doesn't matter to the Hatter. Here's a list of our national weapons inventory in that bright day: solar tanks, hybrid jet fighters, wind carriers, all electric jeeps and armoured personnel carriers. Please forgive my attempt at humor. You're talking about leaping forward in time technologically to the point where only a strong imagination could even begin to dream it all up.

Reality is what we have. The green dream is fiction. To feed and house and afford the grandest life style this world has likely seen takes gas. Food production takes gas. Defense takes gas. Obviously the list is endless. Reinventing all of man's achievements on a whim is not possible. The only people that would even consider it are the idealists of the world. What would their world look like anyway? All the sandal clad gentle folk standing out on some green pasture. Smiling up at a solar powered jumbotron featuring John Lennon singing Imagine all the people living for today, nothing to live and die for? Patting themselves on the back for saving the planet? (which I do not accept as being in peril)

Sorry, give me a 69 chevelle with the open road lying before me, on the stereo Jimi Hendrix is singing All Along The Watch Tower, and I've only got a few minutes to get to work. That's okay though cause if I push it a little I can be there on time. Of course I'd have to get the little electric cars cleaned out of my grill at some point. LOL

By the way, the technology to produce and provide the existing green energy efforts is way more expensive than the fossil fuels they intend to replace.[/QUOTE]

Google might disagree with you

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/09/26/...gn-Changes

A good old private company, the model of capitalism at its finest!

The article to which you posted a link has absolutely nothing to do with alternative (i.e., "green") energy. Google is proposing a standardization of the voltage of the power supplies used in servers. Google claims that the change would save energy, not that it would cause a any shift from fossil fuels to some alternative source.

[tvtimeout]

Seriously, are you saying there is no market for fossil fuels? It's my belief that the day that gasoline is not readily available will mark the start of the 2nd dark age, (pun intended)

I can see it now, everything goes magically green whether the technology exists for green energy or not doesn't matter to the Hatter. Here's a list of our national weapons inventory in that bright day: solar tanks, hybrid jet fighters, wind carriers, all electric jeeps and armoured personnel carriers. Please forgive my attempt at humor. You're talking about leaping forward in time technologically to the point where only a strong imagination could even begin to dream it all up.

Reality is what we have. The green dream is fiction. To feed and house and afford the grandest life style this world has likely seen takes gas. Food production takes gas. Defense takes gas. Obviously the list is endless. Reinventing all of man's achievements on a whim is not possible. The only people that would even consider it are the idealists of the world. What would their world look like anyway? All the sandal clad gentle folk standing out on some green pasture. Smiling up at a solar powered jumbotron featuring John Lennon singing Imagine all the people living for today, nothing to live and die for? Patting themselves on the back for saving the planet? (which I do not accept as being in peril)

Sorry, give me a 69 chevelle with the open road lying before me, on the stereo Jimi Hendrix is singing All Along The Watch Tower, and I've only got a few minutes to get to work. That's okay though cause if I push it a little I can be there on time. Of course I'd have to get the little electric cars cleaned out of my grill at some point. LOL

By the way, the technology to produce and provide the existing green energy efforts is way more expensive than the fossil fuels they intend to replace.

Here is a source that we have in our own back yard... imagine what our area would be like then, because, it kills the hippies arguements about clean energy, because it is clean, and it keeps jobs right here in S.Ky. But hey it will never happen, I also think the world is flat, we will never get to the moon, and what is this thing called the Internet any way?:Thumbs:

http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/naturalgas/