WWTBAM Bored

"...this liberal is for taking over all your oil companies" while grilling the oil company executives.


Maxine the Idiot Threatens Nationalization of Oil Companies

Yeah- that's good...that'll work.

Maybe $10/gallon gas is coming sooner than we think.

Just when I think a politician can't say anything more moronic...one comes along and sets a new bar.

(PS Link fixed)

Sounds like a right-wing nutcase to me.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

silvercamaro wrote:That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

What? Didn't you overhear my conversation with your live-in composer about freaky opera characters?

ulysses5019 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

What? Didn't you overhear my conversation with your live-in composer about freaky opera characters?

Annie takes that sort of thing very seriously, you know.

Bob Juch wrote:Sounds like a right-wing nutcase to me.

Sorry- left-wing nutcase.

Right-wing nutcases want to take over other countries' oil!

When I first moved to this house, she became my Representative after Julian Dixon (who impressed me) died. I wasn't impressed (but Democrats won the district typically by roughly 10-1 margins). The district boundary changed after the 2000 census -- now I'm in Waxman's district. --Bob

I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interveiw with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

My thought is that most U.S. Senators and Representatives don't even know enough to realize that the largest companies in the oil industry are multinational corporations. Whatever portion they might seize would damage the worldwide economy without gaining control of as much oil and gas as they imagine. Furthermore, if any oil companies were nationalized, the price of all forms of petroleum -- and everything else -- would go up considerably, as inefficiency and political corruption take their very expensive tolls. As the resulting depression and inflation continued, I predict, the House and Senate would vote that their benefits (while in office and through retirement) should include unlimited free gasoline from the then-government-owned oil industry as an accompaniment to their already overly generous retirement and health care plans.

In other words, it would be a disaster for all the rest of us.

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interview with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

That would be far more likely with a Republican congress and president. That's not going to happen though.

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interview with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

That would be far more likely with a Republican congress and president. That's not going to happen though.

A Republican Congress and President is more likely to Nationalize a large and important sector of our economy?

You are nuts.

silvercamaro wrote:

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

My thought is that most U.S. Senators and Representatives don't even know enough to realize that the largest companies in the oil industry are multinational corporations. Whatever portion they might seize would damage the worldwide economy without gaining control of as much oil and gas as they imagine. Furthermore, if any oil companies were nationalized, the price of all forms of petroleum -- and everything else -- would go up considerably, as inefficiency and political corruption take their very expensive tolls. As the resulting depression and inflation continued, I predict, the House and Senate would vote that their benefits (while in office and through retirement) should include unlimited free gasoline from the then-government-owned oil industry as an accompaniment to their already overly generous retirement and health care plans.

In other words, it would be a disaster for all the rest of us.

Obviously I agree 100%

Spock's political Axiom-
"Those politicians that holler the loudest about gas prices are the same politicians that are most adamantly opposed to expanding domestic exploration and production."

I also suspect that those demagoging the issue-either ignore or don't care or don't understand-the essentially small field that the Exxons and so forth have to play on-given the large areas controlled by national oil companies (Aramco,PEMEX etc).

I am sure Petro-China follows the strictest environmental and humanitarian standards on whatever they are doing in the Sudan.(SARCASM)

Spock wrote:I am sure Petro-China follows the strictest environmental and humanitarian standards on whatever they are doing in the Sudan.(SARCASM)

Or off the coast of Florida, where GOP AND Dems gathered together to prevent companies from drilling.

Well, China and Cuba are there now- but I'm sure they're taking every precaution to keep the Gulf clean.

Jeemie wrote:

Spock wrote:I am sure Petro-China follows the strictest environmental and humanitarian standards on whatever they are doing in the Sudan.(SARCASM)

Or off the coast of Florida, where GOP AND Dems gathered together to prevent companies from drilling.

Well, China and Cuba are there now- but I'm sure they're taking every precaution to keep the Gulf clean.

Plus with horizontal and angled drilling techniques.-I bet the Chinese are/will be very scrupulous to stay on their side of the line and are/will be very careful not to dip any straws into US oil.

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interview with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

That would be far more likely with a Republican congress and president. That's not going to happen though.

WTF-what color is the sky in your world?

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interview with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

That would be far more likely with a Republican congress and president. That's not going to happen though.

I don't quite understand your statement. If you're saying that drilling in ANWR is more likely with a Republican congress and president then I would agree.

However, if your stating that Big Oil nationalization is more likely under the Republicans, then I think you've been nipping the cider a bit too much.

The Democrats have blocked ANWR drilling since the late 1980's as Clinton said he would veto any such bill that passed. We'll never know if we would be in a much better position had we been getting oil from ANWR when that bill first came up. But, reports claim there were over 10 billion barrels of oil there and that certainly, IMO, would have been a good start. Those were mighty expensive caribou they were protecting.

You guys crack me up.

No YOUR guys would do the evil thing, no YOUR guys would, WE would never do that.

Spock understands this issue far better than I, but this country already has de facto nationalization of oil companies. Hugo Chavez has far less sway over the oil industry in his country than the most powerful politicians do over the oil industry IN THIS COUNTRY.

Notice I'm not trying to claim the US manipulates the multinational, or global oil industry. But as far as this country's internal production, distribution, and marketing, the deed's already done.

Although it might be more correct to say that the people who run the oil industry in this country are the same people as the people who run the government.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interview with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

That would be far more likely with a Republican congress and president. That's not going to happen though.

A Republican Congress and President is more likely to Nationalize a large and important sector of our economy?

You are nuts.

While I hesitate to analyze such a telling and insightful statement as "You are nuts," has it occurred to you that it is the Republican Congress and Presidents who have done the most recent nationalization of a large industry in this country, namely education?

Yes, I realize that Jimmy Carter started the Federal DOE, but Reagan expanded it, after campaigning on a platform of abolishing it, and GWB has practically institutionalized it with NCLB.

mrkelley23 wrote:You guys crack me up.

, but this country already has de facto nationalization of oil companies.

.

Dagnabbit-I had not thought of the issue from that angle-I was formulating my thought stream based on a straight up nationalization (ala Mexico 1938-IIRC)=now, I have to get depressed as I realize that yes you are right-evidence-Ethanol mandates and so forth support your position.

Admittedly, my fears and thoughts of oil nationalization have been recently stoked because I have been listening to Ed Schultz's regional show lately. This is the one where he is not supposed to do national stuff, but he can not resist it.

He has really been attacking the big oil companies.

Spock wrote:Admittedly, my fears and thoughts of oil nationalization have been recently stoked because I have been listening to Ed Schultz's regional show lately. This is the one where he is not supposed to do national stuff, but he can not resist it.

He has really been attacking the big oil companies.

I've heard Ed Schultz on some TV shows recently (Hardball and Olbermann and someplace elese - I am thinking CN8, the Comcast station).

The guy impresses me.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:I have been thinking about oil nationalization quite a bit recently. I fear what an Obama presidency with massive Democrat majorities may attempt in this area.

My main stream of thought is that the day we nationalize the oil companies is the same day we will see ANWR drilling(which I oppose) and massive offshore drilling activities (Which I support) and eventually even oil drilling in the national parks.

It will be for "The People" you know and it would be reactionary and obstructionist to stand in the way of "The People."

Just last night, I heard an interview with an oil and gas consultant that said -even given all the opposition to offshore drilling in California-drilling is allowed off Santa Barbara because the state gets the money. Then they think it is OK.

That would be far more likely with a Republican congress and president. That's not going to happen though.

I don't quite understand your statement. If you're saying that drilling in ANWR is more likely with a Republican congress and president then I would agree.

However, if your stating that Big Oil nationalization is more likely under the Republicans, then I think you've been nipping the cider a bit too much.

The Democrats have blocked ANWR drilling since the late 1980's as Clinton said he would veto any such bill that passed. We'll never know if we would be in a much better position had we been getting oil from ANWR when that bill first came up. But, reports claim there were over 10 billion barrels of oil there and that certainly, IMO, would have been a good start. Those were mighty expensive caribou they were protecting.

I'm saying both. I've heard several Republicans saying that oil is a vital resource and should therefore be nationalized. I've not heard any Democrats saying that; they say they're glad the price of gas is up so people now are finding alternatives to using it.

Note I'm not saying that either position is official party policy.

Bob78164 wrote:When I first moved to this house, she became my Representative after Julian Dixon (who impressed me) died. I wasn't impressed (but Democrats won the district typically by roughly 10-1 margins). The district boundary changed after the 2000 census -- now I'm in Waxman's district. --Bob

When I was a congressional aide, I remember that she tried pushing an amendment that I was afraid was going to undermine one of our committee's bills that had good bi-partisan support.

I didn't like it because I thought she was putting her personal priorities above the greater good -- especially when there was a bill on the docket later that week where her amendment would have fit much better.

BTW, IIRC, she succeeded Gus Hawkins in Congress. Gus Hawkins was the Chairman of the Education and Labor committee.

Chairman Hawkins retired in 1991 and my boss, Bill Ford of Michigan, because chairman. Chairman Hawkins passed away a couple hears ago. He was 100, IIRC.

I don't think Julian Dixon died until the late 1990s.

mrkelley23 wrote:You guys crack me up.

No YOUR guys would do the evil thing, no YOUR guys would, WE would never do that.

Spock understands this issue far better than I, but this country already has de facto nationalization of oil companies. Hugo Chavez has far less sway over the oil industry in his country than the most powerful politicians do over the oil industry IN THIS COUNTRY.

Notice I'm not trying to claim the US manipulates the multinational, or global oil industry. But as far as this country's internal production, distribution, and marketing, the deed's already done.

Although it might be more correct to say that the people who run the oil industry in this country are the same people as the people who run the government.

I never thought of it this way, either.

Now, like Spock, I am depressed- because I guess Waters was just voicing what's already true to a large extent.