Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Obama oil policy

February 1, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

I recently discovered that Cuba and China are in cahoots to start drilling for oil off the Florida coast. Meanwhile, President Obama has nixed the Keystone pipeline, at least until the election is over (surprised?) and has given Brazil half a billion for oil exploration and drilling.

Oil exploration and some drilling on U.S. soil and waters has been halted for the most part. The U.S. has, though, dumped billions into “green” companies, at least a few of which have gone belly up — with Solyndra being the headliner. Gas is about $3.39 average/gallon now. Obama claims he wants foreign oil independence and that he wants to get the U.S. job market fired up. This administration’s policies continue to remain a mystery.  What is Obama up to?

Comments

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

didn't they ban you? you know gas is $3.19 a gallon in Lawrence right? you know what the oglallah acquifer is right? you know tar sand oil is full of carbon dioxide and bad for the environment? you shouldn't watch an episode of the Faux network and quote it as the truth on here.... people outside of Linwood are smarter than that you know..... food for lack of thought.....that's all....

0

littlexav 2 years, 5 months ago

Tar sand oil is not "full of carbon dioxide." Or do you actually think it's like Dr. Pepper? Do your research.

0

beerbaron03 2 years, 5 months ago

oil is made of hydrocarbons. carbon dioxide isn't made until said hydrocarbons combust with oxygen.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 5 months ago

Good old Nancy-Tom. Mucking up the issues since forever.Does Linwood not have a venue for you?Decide whether to run for POTUS yet?The clown car isn't quite full.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 5 months ago

Since the clown car has deposited you two on this forum, can either of you prove that anything this letter writer says is false? Other than offering an opinion that Obama's policies remain a mystery and asking what he's up to, every fact asserted in this letter is accurate.

0

Ken Lassman 2 years, 5 months ago

So is the following fact: the top 5 oil companies have been bumping against a trillion dollars in profits for the past decade: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/apr/11/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-top-five-oil-us-companies-raked/

The issue seems to me that big oil is complaining that Obama is trying to move 4 billion dollars of oil subsidies over to clean energy initiatives. Big oil is very aware of the declining profit margins on their investments as the remaining reserves are more and more expensive to extract. Without those subsidies, it's even less profitable. Therefore we're seeing a tussle on how to spend our public monies: use it to develop alternatives to fossil fuels and on energy saving technologies, or prop up Big Oil a bit longer so they can amass more profits a while longer.

In other words, it's a classic corporate socialism struggle!

0

supersonicf111 2 years, 5 months ago

The reason the price is so high, is because demand out-strips supply for both oil and gasoline. The population grows, but we fail to increase our number of refineries, or gasoline processing facilities, which results in shortages. If you can build new refineries or drill new wells, then how can a new company ever hope to create more competition with the big oil companies.

A lot of the restrictions/resistance by the so-called environmental groups, only fuels money going into various green companies, where the owner/investors pocket most of the profits, while producing very little in improvements current or new technologies. These groups just haven’t realized that these companies are make large amounts of money off their perceived righteous work, with very little in return for all their hollering and gnashing of teeth. They complain about the oil company profits, but their actions have directly driven the problem to the level it is at now.

Also, all you electric/hybrid car owners, where does that electricity that you charge your car with come from? From coal for the most part, or from that little gas engine in your car. That’s so much more green than burning straight gas. Go read up on how much coal it takes to keep that power plant producing electricity 24/7/365.

Guess what, only 3% of our coal is imported, so that is why it’s far cheaper to produce electricity vs. gasoline.

To make a comparison, it would cost $3.19 to travel 25 miles in a car that gets 25 MPG vs. $1.01 in one powered by the coal energy equivalent. The true issue with electricity is efficiency and range. Most 100% electric only vehicles can only be driven 40 miles max. That’s not feasible for most Americans, not to mention the outlandish prices the car companies are asking for them.

Show me an emission-free energy source that is also economically feasible, and then I’ll consider it. Until then, wouldn’t you rather buy your oil from Canada, then buy is from the OPEC cartel or Chavez?

I like saving money, so as soon as electric becomes cheaper than gas, and their ranges improve. I’ll be the first to change for the savings alone. If you couldn’t figure it out, I am not a Global Warming believer, but on the other hand, I don’t think we should make the world a pig pen either.

0

repaste 2 years, 5 months ago

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/02/us-sees-renaissance-in-oil-exploration/

"Oil exploration and some drilling on U.S. soil and waters has been halted for the most part."

Maybe not this statement

0

repaste 2 years, 5 months ago

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/02/us-sees-renaissance-in-oil-exploration/

"Oil exploration and some drilling on U.S. soil and waters has been halted for the most part."

Maybe not this statement

0

Ken Lassman 2 years, 5 months ago

Not sure what your point is, repaste. The cheap oil is gone, and while 100 dollar barrel oil will get folks to squeeze out some more pockets, the US production has peaked and no amount of drilling will reverse this in the long run.

It's time to stop propping up oil company profits with our subsidies, time to become more efficient, and time to unpack better alternatives. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will get.

0

Jimo 2 years, 5 months ago

This from the clown car chauffeur who said "The notion that the Bush administration is responsible for the state of our economy when Obama took over is the biggest lie promulgated by the Hard Left in my lifetime."

0

meggers 2 years, 5 months ago

The commitment of exploration funds to Brazil was approved under Bush:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

Not to mention, the US is now importing less foreign oil than it has in 15 years. That pretty much debunks Tom's premise that Obama's policies are failing, and his sinister implication that Obama has some sort of secret agenda.

Paranoid theories and facts are two separate things. Tom would do well to learn the difference.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

The Mope's policy on everything is "I'll say anything that I think will get me another term."

0

deec 2 years, 5 months ago

The Keystone legislation that was just introduced is payback for campaign contributions. http://campaignmoney.org/press-room/2012/01/30/44-senators-behind-keystone-bill-took-23-million

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 5 months ago

Oh come on Tom. Just sell your oil stocks and buy some Facebook stock. You lead us to believe you're independently wealthy anyway. Invest in something else.

0

geekin_topekan 2 years, 5 months ago

The xlt is nothing more than an express route for the Chinese backed Canadian oil to leave this continent. The only way it would lower US gas prices is if those same Chinese investors decided that the US should get no-bid cheap oil just because we are such swell people. Aint gonna happen.

0

windjammer 2 years, 5 months ago

Who gives a hoot what Shewmon has to say about anything.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

The current regime has whizzed away $2 billion to help Brazil sell oil to China.

0

geekin_topekan 2 years, 5 months ago

I see somebody's been watching faux news!!

Try this inconvenience:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

0

littlexav 2 years, 5 months ago

Conservatives don't like facts... But nice try.

0

rtwngr 2 years, 5 months ago

It's called destruction of the American dream and you can find the blueprint in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Obama is a socialist. He needs to be voted out of office and then thrown the heck out of Washington on his can.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 5 months ago

A friend sent me this clip. I have to say I had the same reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLEPPgbNyM

0

Alyosha 2 years, 5 months ago

You've got serious issues with Black History Month, don't you?

Get over it: the majority of the American people duly and legally elected a mixed race man for President in 2008, and he's likely going to win reelection in 2012.

If you can't discuss issues rationally and ethically, but can only see the color of the president's skin and base your reactions solely on that, you've got a serious cognitive problem. Sad, really.

0

BigAl 2 years, 5 months ago

+1. They hate President Obama so much, they absolutely will not allow facts to get in the way of their hatred.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 5 months ago

Poor oil companies. How are they going to keep making record profits, if some of the taxpayers money go to other energies? Bummer. Pity the billionaire. Poor babies.

0

Keith 2 years, 5 months ago

Something doesn't add up here. I think Tom is trying to get a job as a writer for the Onion or the Stephen Colbert show and is using the LJW to try out some of his ideas.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 5 months ago

Bill Maher called the Allinsky stuff nonsense to put in nicely. This right wing think??? tank stuff is total lunacy. Like military intelligence.

0

BigAl 2 years, 5 months ago

Bill Maher and Michael Moore are about as radical on the left as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are to the right. Almost. Limbaugh and Hannity are totally oblivious to facts.

0

usnsnp 2 years, 5 months ago

  1. KEYSTONE says that it will only take 3,000 to 4,000 people to build the pipeline and that they will not all be employed at the same time.
  2. Most of the oil flowing in the pipeline will be for export.
  3. As for not drilling enough in the United States if we are short of oil how come the United States became a net exporter of oil last year.
0

tolawdjk 2 years, 5 months ago

The US was not a net exporter of oil last year.

The US was a net exporter of oil products last year.

Big difference. You cannot put oil into your car. You can put oil products into your car.

Knowledge is dangerous.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 5 months ago

You would know all about TOS violations and banned accounts wouldn't you. You've been resurrected more times than Gingrich.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 5 months ago

A more pertinent question is "could we be worse off than three years ago?"

As disappointing as Obama has been, a McCain/Palin administration would have been truly disastrous.

And a Romney/? administration wouldn't be any better.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 5 months ago

Yet again, you demonstrate that you know nothing of what you type.

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 5 months ago

The problem is that you've vastly oversimplified the scenario. This is nothing more than bumper sticker thinking...even though plenty of people are gullible enough to fall for it.

In the first place, blaming Obama...or any president...for everything bad that happens (or giving them credit for all the good things that does happen) makes no sense. It's illogical thinking.

In the second place...and far more important...most people's lives change over 4 years. Often significantly. Marriage. Divorce. Remarriage. Kids. Grandkids. Graduate from college. Get a job. Lose a job. Get a new job. Retire. Incur debts. Pay off debts. Buy a house. Sell a house. Sickness. Injury. Recovery. Death in the family. Even political changes. They all impact our lives...including whether or not we're "better off" than we were 4 years ago - or whether or not we THINK we're better off.

Oh...and as far as people thinking they were better off on February 1, 2008? I wonder what those same people would say about September 2008...when the sh!t really hit the fan here in the US? When job losses started skyrocketing (though they never reached the unemployment rate of 10.8% that came in December 1982...which, by the way, was when Ronald Reagan had been President for a year.)

Indeed, I wonder what they'd say if you asked them if they were living within their means (saving money, investing for retirement, not using credit cards or home equity loans) 4 years ago?

Again...it's a bumper sticker question. We've got enough simplistic thinking in this country already. You shouldn't be encouraging even more.

0

windjammer 2 years, 5 months ago

If John and Jane voted for Mr. Obama and are better off than they were four years ago. Why would that be entering into the realm of insanity? Speak for yourself its_just_math. Our two votes will go for President Obama.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Why don't we ask Mitt Romney if his portfolio is doing better now than the day before Obama took office.

0

Getaroom 2 years, 5 months ago

No real upside to tar sands oil, unless of course it is the profits of already super wealthy big oil. This BIG News TS speaks of is not new and not one of us knows enough about it talk about it anyway, including Tom Shewmom. But like FHNC, anything to bang on Obama is enough to spark the Racism banter. Actually, just having this open blog is good enough for that. The LJW could just put an article out with no words at all and It's-just-math, FHNC, Snappy and etc, would probably blame Obama for that too. Facts have never been a strong point of the Faux Conservative Republican Party so don't expect them offer anything but false hope and no change for the future.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Did you miss the several posts that contained clear and direct refutations of many of the claims in this letter?

Nice Einstein quote - I would apply it instead to the policies that we had in place when Obama was elected, and had been for some time - the last thing I want is a return to those Republican policies.

The choice is, unfortunately, between flawed politicians on both sides - the question is whether or not we would have been better off with McCain/Palin than with this administration, and whether or not we'd be better off with this one than the Republican nominee, most likely Romney/somebody.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 5 months ago

So he threatened the US with high oil prices, even though they are making record profits, if the government doesn't kowtow to the oil companies, and even though they already get welfare from the government, so they can take home those record profits, and you are upset with her when she wants to protect the American people? You have really drank the "pity the billionaire" koolaid, haven't you.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 5 months ago

Only a poor, unfortunate billionaire would hold our country hostage with threats of raising gas prices, if he doesn't get his way. Maybe he should be arrested for extortion.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

Outing anonymous posters is now okay on this award-winning website?

0

grammaddy 2 years, 5 months ago

I don't see a problem in yanking subsidies from companies making billions in profits and re-investing the money in renewables.The longer we wait, the more it will cost us and I don't mean just financially.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

There's bound to be more soon-to-fail "green" companies owned by big donors to the current regime that the Mope could prop up with our money.

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 5 months ago

But his letter is full of make-believe. Why would you think that made it a great letter?

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

The triumph of ideology over reality.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

My, my, look at all the disappeareded action on thread. Disappointed progressives are getting more hostile as they get more and more disappointed.

0

Gregory Newman 2 years, 5 months ago

The Bible says in the last days that there will be scoffers in the land folks will rather believe a lie than the truth.

Now these controls; the Garn-St. Germaine Depository Institution Act, “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” and NAFTA/GATT are forms of redistributions of wealth and none of these has President Obama’s name attached and these can be considered as socialist policies because you and I have to pay the tax on the subsidy, like for an example TARP. (Troubled Asset Relief Program) All $700 Billion of it.

It can be described as “socializing the losses, privatizing the profits.”

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I love it.

Now you're advocating that our government model itself after the Mafia!

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I know much of the Mafia, thank you.

I was born and raised in NYC, went to Little Italy quite a bit, and even dated the daughter of Joey Gallo for a short time.

0

camper 2 years, 5 months ago

Interesting, I saw some news footage on this last night. You basically had the oil industry saying that this is all wonderful and the land will be restored and buffalo will soon be grazing on the land that was mined. On the other side of the coin you had environmentalists describing the dangers.

I am going to be objective as I can, but here is why I believe Canadian tar sands is a bad idea:

1) There are high instances of rare cancers in the Canadian province currently being dug up, 2) Lakes and rivers are becoming contaminated in these area. 3) Large quantities of natural gas is needed to extract the oil (using cleaner fuel to extract dirtier fuel does not make sense). 4) Extracting this oil is water intensive as well. This creates a lot of wastewater that is currently sitting in run-off pools. Large scale water treatment is required for extracting this oil. 5) Last but not least, I don't like being pushed around by the Canadians on this.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Tom Shewmon -- that don't add up.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Ya gotta love a letter from a former poster here who is now banned -- thank goodness too! -- crying because America isn't more like China and Cuba! How ridiculous.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

I recall Jonathen saying that the LJWorld doesn't remove accounts on request. I don't know, it just doesn't add up to me. Hey, you do the math and see if you come up with the same conclusion.

0

verity 2 years, 5 months ago

You are correct, Bea.

And doesn't "phoenix" mean resurrected from the ashes?

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I have been posting and reading comments on these boards for some time.

As far as I can remember, nobody ever threatened Tom.

He posted in a very provocative and insulting manner towards liberals - I do remember that.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

So you are saying Tom's posting habits were rather like its_just_math's?

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Not a problem. I like Agno's comments.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 5 months ago

On the up side the Obama nightmare will be over soon.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

In the big picture, 5 years really is soon.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

It is a shame that the LJWorld doesn't enforce its own policies. What a crock.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

How is pointing out the failure of the LJWorld to enforce its own policies against civility? If they kept people who have been banned in the past from coming back on, it would ADD to the civil discourse, not take away from it.

0

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

You do realize you just "dittoed" Agnostick's comment to BAA?

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Yep, when you can't argue the message, attack the messenger. So you don't like my spelling? Um... so what?

How about the fact that if the LJWorld wasn't so free with allowing banned users to return it would make for more civil conversation. How about arguing against that?

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

What is up with that? Feel free to point them out as far as I'm concerned. I think this would be a much, much better forum were there no returned users of any political leaning.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 5 months ago

Interesting how anyone who isn't a hard right wing zealot is on the "extreme left".

I think Shewmon is a fairly accurate representative of the kind of people that make up the most vocal and active members of the modern Republican Party.

People like Shewmon are actually very easy to manipulate and control which is why he does not respond to facts the way most people would nor does he possess the ability to research a topic beyond what he may get from Fox News.

Interesting too that conservative talk show hate mongers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck don't have college degrees. The less you know, the more you think you know.

They enjoy being the loudmouths in the room while not necessarily the brightest students. They learn to make up their own facts.

0

Alex Parker 2 years, 5 months ago

You comment was removed because of the personal attack.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

And telling people they are the "extreme far left loons" in virtually every post isn't a form of personal attack? Please.

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

How about we stop calling each other -- left and right -- "far right/left zealots" and just recognize we have different opinions?

Honestly, you call for moderators to ban people, and then call them names in the process. Does this not register with you?

0

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Why would I call you a zombie? I only use that term to describe people who have been banned and then return anyway. ...

oh

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.