President Obama gives $2 billion for off-shore drilling

[BigRob]

I learned some more about your post. Your claim is false. Obama didn't "give" them anything. You might be taken more serious if you didn't just make up your own claims so you could rail away against them.

Try actually reading a post for once. What part of "The loan is going to Brazil to help them drill offshore" do you take to mean it is not a loan?

That is a direct quote from my first post... apparently you missed that one. Ridiculous.

 

[Greco]

Try actually knowing what you're talking about for once. The title of your post is... "President Obama Gives $2 Billion For Offshore Drilling".

It seems it's you that doesn't understand the difference between "giving" and "lending. Yes you really are quite ridiculous, and it seems you've never learned the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, quite digging.

 

[PLC1]

That is awfully interesting, since our own government in a 2006 report by the Minerals Management Service (based on 2003 information) estimated the "quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." - Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assessment 2006. Where is that? The outer continental shelf, which has been mostly banned from drilling.

As for Saudi Arabia, you seem to indicate that you want to be beholden to the Saudi monarchy when creating domestic policy. You will have to forgive me if I do not agree.

And no, it would be impossible to only sell our own domestically, after all it is a world market, but why import it when we can become a net exporter?

You missed the part about economically recoverable oil. Sure, there is a lot of oil in the ground, some in the form of oil shale, some very deep underground. The problem is the cost of recovery. If the cost is greater than the global price, then no one is going to want to drill for it, unless the government is going to subsidize the project.

 

[BigRob]

You missed the part about economically recoverable oil. Sure, there is a lot of oil in the ground, some in the form of oil shale, some very deep underground. The problem is the cost of recovery. If the cost is greater than the global price, then no one is going to want to drill for it, unless the government is going to subsidize the project.

That is my point. We are all but subsidizing drilling now in Brazil, why not spend that money to do it here if we are going to do it at all?

 

[BigRob]

Try actually knowing what you're talking about for once. The title of your post is... "President Obama Gives $2 Billion For Offshore Drilling".

It seems it's you that doesn't understand the difference between "giving" and "lending. Yes you really are quite ridiculous, and it seems you've never learned the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, quite digging.

So... I say that President Obama "gives" Brazil $2 billion in the form of a "loan" and you claim I am an idiot and need to learn facts because in fact it was a "loan."

You remind me of this exchange. To the ignore list for you.

 

[Greco]

Gosh, you make it sooo easy.

If we loan money to Brazil they pay us back with interest. If we spend money here to drill for oil that cost more to recover than it sells for, we lose money.

So your position is we need to waste more tax dollars. Might want to re-think that one.

 

[BigRob]

Gosh, you make it sooo easy.

If we loan money to Brazil they pay us back with interest. If we spend money here to drill for oil that cost more to recover than it sells for, we lose money.

So your position is we need to waste more tax dollars. Might want to re-think that one.

We can't "loan" money to someone here? Isn't that what we did with TARP?

 

[PLC1]

That is my point. We are all but subsidizing drilling now in Brazil, why not spend that money to do it here if we are going to do it at all?

It would make more sense to subsidize our own industry, rather than that of Brazil, I agree with that.

Doing so would not bring energy independence, as some seem to think. We'd be even better of to simply quit spending money that we don't have. How is our government in a position to loan a couple of billion to anyone?

If they are, maybe they could loan me a couple, since they seem to have so much. I'd even be willing to pay 1% interest. I could put the money in CDs at 2.5% (which is a pitiful rate), and make 1.5% net profit. That would amount to $30 million a year. I could live on that.

 

[PLC1]

So... I say that President Obama "gives" Brazil $2 billion in the form of a "loan" and you claim I am an idiot and need to learn facts because in fact it was a "loan."

You remind me of this exchange. To the ignore list for you.

Which one of you is Barney Frank, and which the woman comparing Obama to Hitler?

 

[Greco]

"We can't "loan" money to someone here? Isn't that what we did with TARP?"

Brazil made application for a loan from the federal agency designed just for that purpose. What American oil companies are asking for a federal loan to drill? The answer is none.

 

[BigRob]

Which one of you is Barney Frank, and which the woman comparing Obama to Hitler?

I feel Barney Frank's pain around 1:05.

 

[PLC1]

I feel Barney Frank's pain around 1:05.

LOL! Any dining room tables on this forum?

 

[BigRob]

"We can't "loan" money to someone here? Isn't that what we did with TARP?"

Brazil made application for a loan from the federal agency designed just for that purpose. What American oil companies are asking for a federal loan to drill? The answer is none.

So we felt compelled to loan billions to Brazil when domestic companies could do it here for free (assuming we lifted the ban.)

Further, the government would make a hell of a lot more money off domestic production here than the interest off a loan to Brazil.

The loan is not a bad thing, but we ought to open up drilling in most of the offshore areas here too.

 

[top gun]

TopGun wrote -

Says who? You are wrong as usual.

Americans can mean by common definition: Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.

Dems aren't going to change it to state US citizen, because they need the votes. It's either that or they make all illegals legal. Take your pick.

That's ridiculous. The term "AMERICAN" used in the context of this purposed legislation is clearly used so that it is noted that illegal aliens ARE NOT included.

The very fact that all these other places are in your corrupted definition actually points to that as well. All those place you've mentioned would have equal legal footing in your example.

Anyone believe we're try to pass a Health Insurance Reform Bill that covers everybody living in SOUTH AMERICA???

Your partisan foolishness runs amuck my friend...

 

[top gun]

I have to agree with ASUR that if they wanted it to say U.S. Citizens they would have. I appreciate your trusting nature, but I don't trust wordsmiths with law degrees.

These kinds of games and tricks are part of the political machine. This is why the funding of one of the richest companies in the world so they can drill off of Brazil is so suspect. This is being done only weeks after a U.S. (Ohio) company was denied a co-signature on a $1B loan to expand their ability to enrich Urianium for nuclear power.

Makes you wonder why we would give money to a foreign entity for a fuel that they will sell to us versus supporting a privately funded loan that would provide power, jobs, and economic support for an area of the country that has 12% unemployment.

I'll keep both of your posts marked. When the actual Bill is passed and there's no provision for illegal aliens to get coverage & illegal aliens aren't getting in on any part of the plan will you than just admit you were completely over reacting & mistaken?

Because I have ZERO doubt illegal aliens will be intentionally disallowed and it won't be that long until a Bill is passed. It will be easy to come back to this.