Should the U.S. allow more offshore drilling to find new sources of oil? Why or why not?

Comments

• The truth is, this is worse than the worst case they ever had imagined before. The safety devices that would have prevented these leaks from ever happening, even in the event of the rig sinking, all failed. Never before has every safety precaution failed, even when the worst case scenario has been simulated.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 7th, 2010

• Gee, we plan everything so well and we learn from all of our mistakes how could such a thing ever, ever happen oh my gosh it is just inconceivable isn't it?

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 8th, 2010

• No, it just teaches us that there is more to consider than what has been before.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 10th, 2010

• no because it is bad for the inviormint and polutes our air this could cose our world to end in 2012

  • Report
  

  by pinkey79468 on May 10th, 2010

• If I may, Addicted2luv, I wasn't actually talking about safety devices, I meant actual people, experts, standing by to come in as quickly as possible to help contain the situation, should it come to the worst.
  
  That said, you still make an excellent point. This is the worst oil rig disaster in American history, and any precautionary measures probably would have failed anyway simply because of how badly things went.

  • Report
  

  by Katsuona on May 10th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• ever seen a plutonium mine? Getting nuclear material to power the nation isnt a permanent sustainable solution. Eventually the plutonium will run out just like oil and coal. not to mention that the mineing process to extract the raw plutonium is extreemly inefficient and requires masive amounts of fossil fuels. in my honest opinion nuclear is just another half assed solution just like solar and wind are.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on May 9th, 2010

• If you do a little research, you will find that the plutonium supply will be able to last us over 2000 years while our coal, oil, and natural gas supplies are doomed to run out within 200 years.
  
  Also, France is 100% dependent on Nuclear with some wind.

  • Report
  

  by fredthemechanic on May 22nd, 2010

• @fred
  While that is true it does not take into consideration that plutonium wont power a tractor or the multitude of other pieces of equipment needed in the mining process. Those things need petrolium and there is no alternative on the table except maybe hydrogen that can come close to replacing the petro powered economy weve become dependant on. Can you picture a big rig rolling down the highway powered by plutonium, or batteries? Thats not going to happen. I stand by what i said. Maybe its you who should do some research.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on May 22nd, 2010

• Why do you think that solar and wind are not viable? Several countries out side of the US have begun to embrace and utilize both sources to help answer their energy needs.
  
  Further if you think about it how long has "oil" been around?
  
  I say that this "lack of vision" and imagination fueled by what I term our addiction to oil and its by products are the real problem. It's rather reflective of the mind set that say it is the way it is, because that is the way it has all ways been.
  
  We need to become inventive again, regaining our strength as a country that relishes new ideas, new industries, new technologies and better ways of doing things. This was our strength in the past and it should be our strength again.
  
  I think that when all is said and done it will not necessarily be a single source solution but a multi source solution that we end up utilizing to solve these problems and the need for oil will be reduced significantly maybe even becoming obsolete at some (hopefully) not to distant point in the future.
  
  I mean really just take a look at the Tesla Roadster (not sure of its full name) that is one nice looking car! Definitely nice, nice price tag too;)

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 24th, 2010

• @zyrblue
  Solar wind and nuclear cant replace petroleum because you can’t carry it around in a container or use it to power internal combustion engines. Maybe you can get a battery powered car but you’ll never get a battery powered semi truck or a battery powered industrial farm tractor or a battery powered industrial earth excavator. Society is going to come crashing to a halt without those petroleum powered machines. That’s why I say that wind solar and nuclear are half assed solutions.
  
  You’re right oil hasn’t been around long, and it won’t be around for that much longer. Unless we figure out a real substitute for our energy demand humanity is destined to return to pre industrial revolution conditions.
  
  Imho geothermal+hydrogen=win

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on May 24th, 2010

• Agree with you in regards to "portable/transportation" power particularly in regards to large ticket items. But I also think that the answers to our problem as I said will not necessarily be singularly based. Solar and wind can be utilized effectively for permanent based power sources. The efficiencies of a power source or any technology for that matter is often the result of increased use and acceptance in the public sector.
  
  I also like geothermal and hydrogen and I think that nuclear is problematic beyond just obtaining the raw materials.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 25th, 2010

Comments

• I can't wait till the last drop of oil is gone.

  • Report
  

  by navyboy on February 25th, 2011

Comments

• ...
  

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 11th, 2010

Comments

• This is a funny response.

  • Report
  

  by Orangepowder on August 28th, 2010

Comments

• You must be one of the enviromarxists. Who is going to develop other energy supplies genius? We need to drill to bring the prices down and screw OPEC. Why do you libs demand other nations to drill more and not us

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 10th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

• You make a lot of good points.
  You might want to put this in a separate poll?

  • Report
  

  by navyboy on February 25th, 2011

Comments

Comments

• Your right sega256. There needs to be the strictest security measures and until we have the spill cleaned up we should not drill.

  • Report
  

  by AKNA on June 24th, 2010

• yeah, but later on we are going to find out that it is survival of the fitist and not care about the animals...

  • Report
  

  by MrParanoidLoko on August 7th, 2010

• survival of the rich reaping off of it. they dont care about the animals, never did, It's pretty much publicity for BP. Im against it, but sadly until we have alternate fuels(that are not blocked by OPEC, or the govnt, we have to have a steady supply of crude. ....sadly

  • Report
  

  by sega256 on August 7th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• HAX

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 10th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Consider this. Every major disaster in US history, has resulted in new and better ways to overcome that problem in the future.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 7th, 2010

• I'm not sure if I should consider your statement to be one of an optimist or an egotist.
  
  Do you mean to say that you are fine with what is going on? Or that what has happened doesn't matter because well figure out a way to prevent it from happening again? What exactly is your point? Our only lucky streak was that at the end of the day the weather cooperated and to some extent this has helped to negate the more obvious affects this spill could have had. The full extent of damage done will not be know or felt for some time.
  
  This was not some little "oops we had an accident but no harm done", this was and is a wake-up call to reality kids. For every fix another problem arises, another accident happens. Just because we can do a thing doesn't make it the right thing to do. We need to end our oil addiction not for any political reason (though that might hep other matters as well) but because we do not need it. We are at a time in our history when we can actually choose to do something different we can choose to ween ourselves off of the oil teat and become independent of oil.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 8th, 2010

• I will explain. Since, while I was only making a point, it is clear I do not oppose offshore drilling.
  
  1. I think that off shore drilling should be limited until better more reliable safety precautions can be invented. That will push capitalist companies to develop the newer better technology faster. They will do it.
  
  2. We can not 100% eliminate out oil dependency. That is a fact. No matter how hard any group tries, there will always be a need for crude oil. If it is for nothing more than the by-products that we use in everyday life, not including gasoline, we still need oil.
  
  3. I am not fine with what is going on, It certainly DOES matter. There will be 1000's of people and animal life affected. That is not something that can be over looked, but you can not make policy based on the 1 in 1million chance that something like this might happen again. This is really a 1 in a million chance that this happened in the first place.
  
  While I do believe that offshore oil drilling should be better monitored, I don't think that it should be 100% disallowed. The fact that this current administration is taking the stance that it is on this issue scares me. It is just another way to bring more control under the governments wing. We are already so far past the level of oppression that the British government was imposing on us when the colonies revolted, I wonder how much further it must go before it happens again.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 10th, 2010

• Sorry for being so late to reply to your reply (is that redundant?).
  
  While on one hand I understand where you are coming from, particularly when discussing the by-products, but it is time to begin finding alternatives to oil.
  
  This situation is a clear cut case of human irresponsibility and corruption, or so it would seem from all that I have read and seen - not just a simple or even a complex mechanical failure. Further it appears that BP is and was more than inept but out right negligent and arrogant surrounding all of this on several sides. This is very reflective of many companies and of human nature in general.
  
  One could argue about all of the positives that the oil industry provides but the simple fact is that we may be faced with a situation here in the gulf that we may never fully recover from. I have faith in the healing processes of nature but even so, we are talking what, decades, centuries till this is past and fully recovered from? It took how long for the environments that are being destroyed in months to develop? What of all of the wild life that is dying or being sickened?
  What about all of the people whose lives are being ruined by this, do they not count, I think that you would agree that they do. What if this oil gets into the loop current?
  
  No, for our convenience and existing life styles the price is to high for my liking. We need to concentrate upon developing alternatives to oil, so that at some point in time it is no longer needed. We must step away from our arrogant stance that nature is here to serve us. We need to realize that we are supposed to be the stewards of this planet rather than seemingly trying to hasten the death of it.
  
  The level of oppression? Hardly if corporations refuse to act responsibly then who is going to keep them in line? Are you going to take the time to make sure they stay on the up and up am I do we even have the ability to do so? Are we just supposed to contentedly such off of the tit of big business because they make our lives easy and let them get away with whatever they want to? As flawed as it is our government unfortunately is the only available entity that exists at this time to monitor these companies and then we each must be vigilant in monitoring who we send to do this work and be every bit aware of what they stand for on all issues when we vote.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 24th, 2010

• I agree with a lot of what you have to say. The flow of information and the power of the people will always be the flexing muscle of america. We as a people must stay constantly well informed to make sure that not only big business stays in line, but the government that we have to monitor those companies as well. In this case BP is being unjustly criminalized by this disaster. The truth is that BP isn't even the company that the blame should have rested on. The rig, the workers, everything related to this disaster isn't even theirs... just the well is BP's. The rig was ran and owned by a 3rd party contractor that BP hired to do the pumping. So I commend BP for standing up to the plate on this. But I also agree with "keeping the big business in check". BP should have been more responsible in their choosing of contractors. They couldn't have predicted this level of incompetency, but they could have better scrutinized the quality of their equipment and workers.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 25th, 2010

• Why has the Navy not been deployed to contain the oil spill?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 26th, 2010

• As the "parent company" and the company whose name is on the lease they are the company responsible for all that goes on in regards to the rig and it's processes. This is a very standard business arrangement and as such being the parent company they are responsible and liable for all of the sub-contractors, workers, processes and materials used in regards to the rig. So they have not been unjustly demonized.
  
  Why the Navy has not been deployed? I would guess because again as it was/is BP's responsibility. Up to this point they have "been in control" to the point of not even allowing other oil companies who have offered to help them come in to do so or even help figure out what to do next as their various attempts failed. Another question is why have they not utilized all of the resources available to them and why have they plaid their cards so close their vests? An attempt to downplay or minimize the exposure in the hopes of controlling their liability as best as they can? That would be my guess.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 26th, 2010

• As you are aware with a disaster of this magnitude, the Navy should have been deployed. Our navy has the ships and tools needed to contain and clean up the oil slick from the beginning. The government has done nothing but say "You big evil oil company, what are you going to do?" A real president would have mobilized our navy within the first week of the slick showing up. Then we wouldn't have such a disastrous environmental outcome from this leak. So send the bill to BP, but get the problem handled. So far our government has done nothing except complain and point fingers. We need to worry about that later. But now, we need to get that oil stopped.
  
  BP has NOT turned down help from other oil companies. Shell recently was saying that BP is doing EVERYTHING it can. The problem was that they HAD TO go so far out because of EPA regulations that the needed to drill 5,000 under water. The solutions that they had don't seem to work the same way at 5,000. If they were allowed to drill closer to shore or at a shallower depth, the leak would have been contained with the first attempt.
  
  So why is OUR government not trying to end this disaster, then worry about who to bill for it when it's done?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 26th, 2010

• When this situation first arose BP would not allow the other oil companies to come out to the site nor to get involved in any way. Further an oil company making a statement in support of another oil company does not imply that they have been invited to the site to help they are just stating an opinion nothing more.
  
  So the EPA is to blame because they are concerned about an environment that is crucial not only to the people who live in the area but the wild life and lets just overlook or ignore the industries that are the direct result of said environment. Oh the EPA the EPA shish. The simple fact is BP knew that they were going to be drilling at the depth that they were but they did not even take the time to take into consideration that the conditions being so different would require a different set of solutions should something go wrong. That is call irresponsibility maybe even arrogance.
  
  Any scientist on the planet can tell you that when doing "a thing" if you change the conditions under which, "this thing" is being done, then the results/performance will also differ, simply due to the change of conditions. Any high school kid playing around in a lab or doing an experiment can tell you that (or at least they used to be able to). A constant is a constant only when the conditions remain unchanged. When the conditions are changed then variable are seen and the result will change as well. BP should have known this and should have accounted for these changed conditions.
  
  Ok as for the government well it seems to me that they were doing exactly what so many people claim that they want them to do. Stay out of interfering with or controlling business. People need to make up their minds but I guess they will be what they are inconsistent. The government is in a position of damned if you do and damned if you don't. If they had come in as you said they should have then people would be screaming about that and the tax payers money being used to fix a problem created by big business-sound familiar???
  Do the work and bill them for it afterwards? As it stands right now this situation is going to be a legal nightmare. Send them the bill? It would be tied up in the courts for how long, with every little thing being disputed and called inflated or some other such thing and in the interim it would be paid for by who? You got it you and me.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 26th, 2010

• You are right, I do want the government to stay out of interfering and controlling business. Which, contrary to your claims, is the exact opposite of what the government has been doing for the last 1 1/2 years. But that has NOTHING to do with this. I didn't say the government should have TAKEN OVER capping the leak. The government should have said to BP. "You don't have the resources to contain and clean up this oil. We are here to help, what can we do? Oh and by the way, you're going to get the bill for this."
  
  How hard is that? It won't be held up in courts because BP has already committed to paying for the cleanup and restitution for valid claims. Why not have a little faith that not all big business companies are bad? I have BIG business as much as the next guy. I am for small business. But we have to be realistic. The need for domestically produced oil is too great at this point in time to say that ALL off shore oil drilling should stop.
  
  To get back on topic, I think that a temporary halt on DEEP SEA drilling was the right move and is exactly what we need so big oil will research and come up with a better/safer way of doing it. I think Obama made a smart move there.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 27th, 2010

• BP implied and gave every impression that they had the resources and the knowledge to do what needed to be done. I still see the government as having been in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. The Navy being called upon to handle the containment and clean up would have been prudent, but again they trusted BP's position of being able to take care of it. Is that not one of the very points you have made? Have a little faith... well our government could be seen as having acted in direct line with that thinking.
  
  Yes, BP is on the books for the tab but when it come time to settle up, claims will be disputed and settlements for pennies on the dollar will more than likely be made. It is one thing to say we are on or responsible for the tab, it can be quite another thing when it comes down to settling the tab in a right and honorable fashion. Which is one very sound reason for letting them do it on their own (not that I agree with that) but at least that is money coming directly out of their coffers and as such the costs to them are real costs. We will just have to wait to see if their words and their actions in the end are in alignment and if their insurances and lawyers act within the frame work of the stated intentions.
  
  I was not surprised when this happened, it served to confirm something that I have felt has been missing in big business and even smaller moderate sized business for quite some time, personal responsibility and accountability. We have to many people in the business world who operate with an attitude of entitlement rather than of earning a place by results or deeds preformed successfully. To many of these people see no need for following sound and good practices nor do they want or think that they should be held accountable. They see much of this as someone else's problem rather than their own. It is this attitude that I encountered personally over the course of my career, which has led me to look at these companies with a jaded eye as to their abilities. It is why, I guess, I am a skeptic.
  
  Oil is a finite resource with negative side affects, that is problematic. This is why I say we need to be developing new resources/new technologies to minimize and eventually replace our dependance on it. I am a realist, I know that we cannot just stop using it. However, I do believe we need to ween ourselves off of it. At this time we are addicted (as I call it) as such it is hard for us to imagine not having it as a part of our lives. I also know that this weening process will take time and that in the interim we will need to use it, but we should be looking at every possible thing that we can do to reduce, minimize, and eventually get it out of our lives.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 28th, 2010

• "I do believe we need to ween ourselves off of it. At this time we are addicted (as I call it) as such it is hard for us to imagine not having it as a part of our lives... this weening process will take time and that in the interim we will need to use it, but we should be looking at every possible thing that we can do to reduce, minimize, and eventually get it out of our lives."
  
  We finally agree on something.
  
  But regardless of the cost of cleaning it up, I think the environmental impact was too great for the president to sit on his hands and go fund raising instead of enabling the Navy to get the oil slick under control.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 28th, 2010

• I merely point out that no matter what he did or dose he is going to be criticized for it by someone.
  I just think pointing the finger at the president and crying foul is an overly simplified view of the situation. We simply do not have all of the data needed to know if the president had valid reasons for waiting or not. Not that I like it!
  
  I don't disagree with you in-regards to the Navy, I think that we should have been in the heart of it all overseeing this from the start. Then again, I am also one to be more on the side of actively regulating and over seeing these companies and the processes they employ to make sure that they are doing all that they should and doing it to our standards. Yes I am one of those oppressors and I am for this exact reason and more.
  
  I have enjoyed our exchanges and just wanted to say thanks for the insight and thoughts you have offered :)
  Z

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 29th, 2010

• I appreciate this as well. We obviously have very differing opinions on this matter but ultimately, we want the same end results. We both think that a lot more should have been done a lot sooner, and we both want whatever it takes to get this situation under control and over with. We both want the oil to be cleaned up in the fastest and best way to minimize long term environmental impact.
  
  Some of what you have said really made me think hard an re-evaluate some of my opinions on how government regulations are employed. I think that our current (pre-sinking rig) drilling regulations are sufficient. But the enforcement of these regulations needs to be much stronger enforced.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 1st, 2010

Comments

• Very well said my friend!

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 10th, 2008

Comments

• If it comes to a choice between bears, birds and wildlife and my needs for providing for me and my family, guess what? Easy answer.

  • Report
  

  by tmkperez on August 31st, 2010

• @ tmkperez. I am a bit confused by your comment. Do you work in the oil industry?

  • Report
  

  by junipergirl on September 1st, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Then pay your price for gas and do not complain if it is too expensive. Who is going to develop alternative energy and when?

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 10th, 2008

• I don't pay for gas, I'm fortunate enough to live in a city with a civilized level of public transit, and where bicyclists aren't run down on sight.
  -
  And to answer you qeustion, no one and never if enough people continue to ignore the need and dismiss an insistent on improvement as "Complaining".

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 11th, 2008

• Really?? Do you not heat your home? Do you look at the price of food? We need to drill for now and invest in alternative energy. Why do we constantly demand that other nations drill more to bring the price down?

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 11th, 2008

• True enough, I do heat my home, and the price is a bitch, yes.
  But, you're still operating on the assumption that drilling would help.
  With the current rates of inflation, and the fact that oil drilling is a major gamble (as I laid out in my answer, if you've read it closely), drilling could help, could do nothing, and in either case won't matter in the long term.
  -
  And to answer your question: Because "We" are hypocrites, that's why.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 12th, 2008

• Drilling for now would help big time. Who do you think is going to develop this alternative energy and how long do you think it will take. I support drilling big time for now and will until there is something in sight. We are light years away from it and frauds liks Obama and Al Gore will not give you any kind of a solution just talks. I wish Al Gore stops his propaganda about manmade global warming and look at the sun.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQIIBoVBhYM

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 14th, 2008

• It might help big time *Now*, but what about in one, or two, or even half of a decade, when inflation will have caught up, reserves will have gone back down, and our children or grandchildren (or possibly even us) will be in the same situation, only minus some valuable chunks of Earth's natural beauty.
  Whether you place any stock in Al Gore's "Propaganda" or not, there's the simple fact that depending on fossil fuels is like driving headlong towards a brick wall. We can do some things to slow it down, totally destroying our brakes in the process, or we can turn.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• What's the point of alernative energy *Ever* being developed, if we've already trashed our planet to support fossil fuels by then?
  One important factor a lot of people seem to leave out of the energy discussion: Life is more than what we use energy for. If we support oil-depency now with things like Alaskan drilling and invasions of the Middle East, we might be able to keep our economy going, but the world will be a much worse place for it, and not just due to climate change.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• I completely agree with a lot that you are saying but who is going to develop that energy. The fact is the government has never done anything about it and the politicians have always talked about it. Now you have Obama spreading his propaganda and socialist ideas which are not achivable and we are way behind in developing it. It may take us 20 years to develop something but he is not pointing out solutions. McCain on the other hand really has no plan. So for now I would rather drill and begin by giving tax breaks to company who begin to develop

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• We can all see the scam Ethanol delivered. High prices of meat and the price per gallon is higher than regular gas. Wind power has been a failiure so has solar. I live in Bulgaria and they have installed solar powered water heaters in the hotels around Black sea. Guess what happens when there is not enough light. You take a cold shower. The system costs $3000 not good for me

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• Here is an example of the product. Would you mount this on top of your house for about $3000 and the prices have remained the same in the past 5 years. How much would you save in the name of the planet? It will cost you a fortune. Natural gas heater cost $200 a year so you do the math. I like my good old natural gas for now which there is plenty for the next 200 years so is oil. We need to develop diesel from animal fat but the politicians have blocked it. That's Democrats and republicans
  http://www.helioakmi.com/solar-systems/water-heater-manufacturers.html

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• The way I look at it, one of the biggest contributors to the difficulties in developing alternative energy, is the insistence on believing that it's so difficult and on enabling us to avoid something that really is a necessity.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• The question is: Who is going to develop it? We can all sit and talk all we want but who can do it. Of course the oil companies who are being taxed at 42% and as you know they are in the business of making money. Profits are a good thing not a ba thing but the Government needs to give them some tax brakes to begin developing it. Not regulate them like Obama wants

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• So... You're condemning wind and solar power as "Failed", but hold out faith for an idea as (well, no nice way to put this) ridiculous and inhumane, as using fat from animals?
  Seems to me like you're stuck in the mindset of *Wanting* believe that alternative energy is unachievable.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• We have been shooting rockets with hydrogen for many years there is a technology in place but the government will not be able to tax you on the water you put in to you tank. Remember they want to controll everything in your life. Just listen to that racist Obama. He learned everything his reverent tought him

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• No I am not saying they have completely failed but most people will think like me and will not buy into it unless it is economicaly ficible. I am not like Al Gore flying around dumping polution with my jet and using as much ebergy in my house as a whole village. He even has a heated pool

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• That's a good question.
  An equally valid question is: Why would anyone develop it when they can still work with fossil fuels and turn a profit?
  Profits are everything to many of those with enough resources to develop new alternative fuel technologies, but look at what those same parties have done when they've been given breaks in the past.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• Generally, they just turn around and use those breaks to make more profit. Without some forms of regulation that make alternative fuel development drastically more profitable than continuing with fossil fuels, there's no good reason to assume they wouldn't just follow the same pattern with any breaks you gave them.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• By refusing to buy into something unless it's "Economically Feasible", you only do more to play into the hands of those who want to control everything in our lives.
  -
  And just by the by, if you continue tacking on largely irrelevant political insults, this discussion will shortly be over.
  Trust me, illustrating that you feel the need to tack those statements on so out of context only makes you look even more like you're operating on ulterior motives and preconceived notions.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• It will be in their best interest to use the money and reinvest it to develop something. Profits should not be regulated. What is this Cuba? Capitalism works best not socialism. When you give the tax breaks they spend it not keep it. It is proven just look at Bulgaria and other countries where they have lowered taxes in half

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• Why would it be in their best interests, exactly? Corporations are like junkies; unless they're restricted somehow, chances are that they'll just follow the path of least resistence to their most immediate fix.
  It's a given that they'll spend it. But just giving energy companies money with the intent of them spending it on alternative fuels, and then expecting them to actually spend it on that without some regulation, is like giving a heroin addict money for a nice new suit.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• If you want results from the companies, offer the companies rewards for presenting viable results, not unregulated breaks to stretch out their waiting game even further.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 15th, 2008

• You are not giving them money! You are just not taxing them as much. Then why not the government just take over all of them and own them?? It does not work!! This country was founded based on limited government. It is not constitutional for the Mob to tax you as much. If you think they make too much money buy their stock you will benefit too

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• You have a Marxist mentality. Take over this sector, give you this, take away from him. Tell you what temperature to put your thermostat at. Give, take away, tax this. This a Marxist way of ruling, here in this great country we build things and develop things not beign taxed to death. 42% how much more do you want to take away from them?

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 15th, 2008

• Important distinction here: Taxing them when they keep on using fossil fuels, not just taxing indescriminately out of some belief that they make too much profit.
  What is economically feasible is controlled by supply and demand, so if the government can control those forces by taxing corporations, then why not use that ability to do something that undeniably needs to be done?
  -
  Corporations haven't always had the same rights they do now, you know, they've gained many rights that, in the original vision of America, were meant for individuals.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• The government totally controlling businesses and people's personal lives is generally a failed idea, yes.
  But that's no reason to eliminate the idea that businesses have a responsibility to work for the people, not just their shareholders.
  Abandoning that idea is to give over to classism, and classism is just as deplorable as any other form of institutionalized bigotry.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• You have a valid point. But how are they going to develop it when their profits are not very big. Remember they report before taxes so the number is not as big not to mention they have loans just like we do and liabilities. Hydrogen run cars could have been developed a long time ago but the Mob did not sponsor that idea in a way of giving them tax breaks or something like that. Now we are in a hole but we can start somewhere. I just don't see either candidate haveng a decent plan in place. I do not want the Government to mess with anything because they screw it all up regardless of party. Look at our retirement. They have destroyed it

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Once again you have a valid point but like I said neither candidate has a plan in place. They both want to regulate how much CEO's make and I do agree that there is too much money paid to them but companies will always screw up the little guy. When you tax them they lay people off or move ot of the country.

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Do you have any idea how massive their profits are to begin with?
  When a company doesn't have the money for something, it's because they're using it for something else, not because they don't have it.
  -
  When someone actually makes progress towards a Hydrogen fueled car, I'm totally in support of offering to buy the technology for as much as we can afford.
  As for our ruined retirement, look at the big picture: Why are people in such dire straight for money into retirement? Because everything is so expensive, and the government's funds haven't been able to keep up with the economy they fail to manage.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• Comanies will always screw the little guy, unless we get drastic and make it impossible for them to screw the little guy without facing *Major* consequences.
  I firmly believe that irresponsible business practices should be subject to at least massive taxation, and at most criminal prosecution.
  And until we realise that corporations need to have their rights scaled down from those of an individual to make up for how much more they take in their "Pursuit of Happiness", those avenues of prosecution will be closed to us.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• We are at war right now and it is not cheap to defend the nation. Everything will remain expensive and it is not just the US. Te whole world is going through a crisis. Just look at Europe 14% unemployement rate 15% mortgages and the cost of living is really high $7.50 a gallon gas. You think you have it so bad there just look around the world. Bulgaria is an exception because of super low taxes 10% flat

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• My company moved from New York where they were paying 42% taxes and in Bulgaria they pay 10%. YES they do not pay so much in salaries but they have to pay 100% for health care (PRIVATE) also they give you 23 vacation days plus sick days. Taxes is what got them out. And Obama wants to tax them even more. I moved here for different resons but like it much better than Chicago home of the holy Obama

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• And that can be a good strategy when your economy has been bouncing in and out of the crapper as rapidly as Bulgaria's over the past few decades.
  But unless I'm mistaken, hasn't there been a rather big controversy over standards of living in Sofia due to pollution? And a country with that large a focus on nuclear power is playing Russian roulette with another Chernobyl.
  -
  Those consequences might not seem like much, but look at how relatively short a time Bulgaria has been employing those policies. Over time, they only get worse.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• First off: Please stop insulting Obama. It just makes you sound like an ignorant arse.
  -
  They have to pay %100 for health care *Why*? The health care they're providing may be private, but I doubt it's private interests that's making them pay it.
  -
  And you're assuming that I'm in favour only of the U.S. government taxing corporations more. No, in fact, it needs to be a concerted effort among all the nations of the world, to resolve an issue that effects them all.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• True pollution is a problem that's why I do not stay much in the capital. The nuclear power is OK now because of regulations by the European Union. They may get wors over time but for this moment capitalism works best. Just come on over and look at the restaurants here in every city. They are full with people. They are much happier and I think is mostly due to people having a lot more sex

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Yep, the nuclear power is OK now, because it is regulated. My point precisely.
  The only language understood by these profit-junkies is force.
  -
  What sex has to do with capitalism I have no idea... But yes, sex is good.
  Just one the reasons why we need less regulation on personal liberties, and more regulation on corporate ones.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• OK sorry about Obama I just don't like his racist wife and his ideas. My head hurts from politics. We are the little guys fighting after all

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Of course they have to regulate the safety but the power plants are owned by the government sot the EU has to come in because there is so much corruption. As for the sex I did not relate it to capilasim I just ponted out that people have always been happier here due to that. I go out every night and have a lot of fun. In the US it was horrible working like a dog

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Oh, so Bulgaria's energy system is socialized, or is the government just more privatized?
  And frankly, if something like perpetuating oil dependency, which nearly everyone acknowledges not only could but *Is* doing harm, doesn't fall under a matter of safety, I don't know what would.
  -
  And back to the original point here... Even if you do believe that companies should be given breaks to work on alternative fuels, how does that match up with letting them try to tap new reserves of oil?

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• Our current reserves are very low, but not so low that it's not possible for them to last until a viable alternative can be developed, *If* we have an urgent motivation to try at both development and conservation, which we won't if they're allowed to just keep on drilling.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• So lets all stop driving and start heating with wood. You really have no idea. Bulgaria is the perfect example that more government will do you no good. TAXES TAXES TAXES OBAMA OBAMA

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• That was an honest question, are Bulgaria's nuclear power plants socialized?
  At least if we lean away from oil we might still *Have* wood in a few hundred years.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• Yes, it is socialized and it sucks. The government is so corrupt that it steals everything they can. Trust me my friend there is plenty of oil and gas for the next 200 years. I get this info from my mom who is well qualified to trust. Vote for Obama and give up your liberty in the name of more government. Socialism sucks. Obama has already lost everything that was going for him. The "CHANGE" tune has wore off on people. They do not want big government

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• By the way both candidates want to develop alternative energy and I like that. BUT we need to drill for now to bring prices down and invest in that energy but not like the ethanol scam where high food prices came. I guess the best thing to do is to go back 300 years and stop living the way we do. All in the name of more government controll

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Oh really? You seemed pretty okay with it just a while ago.
  -
  Give the people small government with regards to their own personal rights, and large enough government with regards to large private interests to stop their rights from being infringed upon from that sector, and maybe then they'll actually be able to get what they want without interference.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• You said it correctly!!! But so far since Ronald Reagan it has not happened. You sound like an Obama suporter but trust me he will massively exp[and the Government. By the way it must be really late by you. I am at work and the time is 9:45 am.

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• Why invest in somethat's going to wind up as a dead end? And for that matter, why invest in something that could end up as a dead end right here and now?
  Remember, like I said earlier on, drilling for oil does not necessarily equal having oil.
  -
  High prices are going to be there at any rate.
  Maple syrup has risen to nearly $8.00 a bottle where I am, bread has gotten ridiculous... and that's not because of ethanol, it's because of general inflation and increased cost of shipping it, which isn't just going to magically disapear no matter what we do.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• Actually, when the election began I was a Ron Paul supporter, now I'm an Obama supporter in the name of damage control.
  Whatever flaws Socialism may have (Obama's not a socialist by the way, his remarks have been spun that way, but he's not), it's not nearly as bad as Fascism, and the conservative candidate/s this time around lean about as close to that as Obama does to Socialism.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 16th, 2008

• I actually am leaning towards Obama too since I want higher taxes. I want to give all the money I make to the government and they will take care of me. I left US and took almost $100,000 from my credit cards and right now if Obama gets in he will bail me out because all I have to say is that the banks cheated me. I WANT MORE TAXES AND I WANT HIM TO STEAL FROM THE RICH AND GIVE IT TO ME. MORE TAXES, TAXES, TAXES, REGULATIONS AND GOVERNMENT. OBAMA 08

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• listen to this
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuNMsA0JPaE

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 16th, 2008

• read this too
  
  http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 17th, 2008

• Which would you prefer, having less money, or having fewer rights?

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• By the way, Mark Levin is, in my experience, an imbecile (as are most people with nothing better to say than attacks against others).
  And I've never defended Al Gore as a person, nor do his personal practices reflect in any way on the validity of his theories, so I don't know why you're even bringing him up.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• I prefer less government. I MAKE MY OWN MONEY AND DO NOT WAIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE ME SOMETHING

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 17th, 2008

• Unless you make a *Lot* of yor own money, you'll actually end up paying a bit less under Obama's tax plan.
  Higher overall taxes don't necessarily mean higher taxes for the working class. Especially in light of all the upper-crust tax cuts put in place under Bush, they often just mean the upper %10 paying a little more.
  -
  How do you think the government gets the money to give us things like paved roads, public schools, and a police force? They take it from us.
  The fact of the matter is, the luxuries we enjoy in America today aren't free, and I don't think it unreasonable at all to be asked to contribute.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• Unless of course you're one of those who insists your money is absolutely, positively YOURS, and not a cent of it must go to ANYONE else but YOU.
  What else do we *Have* money for, if not to further the common good?
  -
  It's one thing to take away people's inalienable rights in the name of the "Greater Good", but remember: One of the reasons a lot of businesses have historically gravitated to America is because of all the liberties they're given in contrast to some other nations.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• First of all all the things you listed are not given my the government but by the State to which you pay taxes. Where does the government get the consitutional right to steal from the rich and give it to the poor? First of all the bottom 50% of erners do not pay taxes as it is

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 17th, 2008

• Without the government choosing to give them those liberties (which they don't have to, corporations do not have inalienable human rights or civil liberties), these corporations would be making a hell of a lot less than they are.
  And even aside from corporate liberties... I'd like to see any large company try to function properly without access to public services like paved roads, educated workers... etc.
  They benefit massively, they should contribute.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• State, Federal... the difference is of little consequence here. It is still provided by the government.
  -
  The government isn't just "Stealing from the Rich and Giving to the Poor", they're stealing from the rich and providing services that *Everyone* benefits from.
  And even in the instances when the wealth is redistributed somewhat... Money's to spend, and can you honestly think of a better thing to spend it on than bettering people's overall quality of life?

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• They contribute 42% did you know that? How much more do you want to steal from them? Japan has a 0 corporate tax rate zero. You sound like a socialist and I lived in Bulgaria 16 year during that regime and have experience. Good luck to your Marxist thinking

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 17th, 2008

• Look at how everything the government puts its hands on it bankrupts it. Take a look at your social security

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 17th, 2008

• Good. The richest %20 of people in the U.S. control roughly %84 of the wealth.
  Everyone should be taxed according to their means, not some flat rate, because as any economist will tell you, value is relative; a $10,000 to one person is more than they'll ever have at any one time, %10,000 to another is a drop in the bucket.
  -
  And you sound like a Capitalist. What of it?

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 17th, 2008

• Social Security is one thing I believe should perhaps be a little more privatized.
  In my humble opinion, Social Security should be able to build off of private resources, and its contributors should be able to vote as to how it's invested (and have it distributed proportionately, not by majority-rule).
  -
  And, again, remember... Bankruptcy is, by definition, a lack of money, and you're sitting here advocating putting in even *Less*?

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 18th, 2008

• Enough, we will never agree. We had a good chat going though. Have a good one. I am in Bulgaria and it is 10:45 am

  • Report
  

  by jimmy23 on September 18th, 2008

• Okay then. If you're ever ready to continue the debate, I'll be ready and waiting (although, to be fair, we did seem to agree on something just now).

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on September 19th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• The good side to accidents of this measure, they get people thinking of new and better ways of preventing it from happening again. Off shore drilling is essential to surviving.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 7th, 2010

Comments

• Which by the way will be filtered right down to us the consumers. Hmm just noticed that I seem to be ending up on a lot of your comments, not intentional, we just seem to be standing on different soapboxes!

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 8th, 2010

• If BP shuffles the cost down to the pump, they will feel a decrease in sales because nobody wants to pay .20 more per gallon for no good reason. People will just go elsewhere.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on May 10th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• • Report
  

  by Hyme on May 4th, 2010

• ._. Did you type anything? I'm just seeing a blank.

  • Report
  

  by Aspergers syndrome on May 5th, 2010

• Economically sound?
  Perhaps we should all read Marx's "Capital", no never mind, that happened with one of his other books and the idiots missed his points completely.
  
  With all that has gone on of late, it seems that the current economic paradigms seem to need a bit of sprucing up and re thinking. America's real strength in the past has come from being leaders in embracing new ways of thinking and of doing. Why would this not be applicable at this time as well? If we are in such a crisis which, if you examine it is in part due to our current technologies, then wouldn't embracing the exploration and development of new technologies seem to be a logical way out of this mess? Americans need to wake up and look long and hard at all that is going on in the world to realize that much harder situations that just satisfying our "oil" energy addiction are on the way if we do not begin changing and exploring alternatives seriously and in short order.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on May 8th, 2010

• Ah I can see it now. Thank you for claryfying. :D

  • Report
  

  by Aspergers syndrome on May 10th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• And just think, oil spills happen all over the world, not just in the US.

  • Report
  

  by Orangepowder on August 28th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• So we should not try to move away from oil?
  Maybe try wing and solar like Germany has?
  
  Just a thought.
  
  I just hate polluting the ocean and giving my money to Arabs who hate me. But we can keep going along with your plan.

  • Report
  

  by navyboy on February 25th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments