1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

O/T Economy

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by midalake, Nov 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. midalake

    midalake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,703
    BUCKLE-UP..........It's going to be a ROUGH RIDE.............

    GS
     
  2. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Buy oil and gold stocks.....

    Rodeo time on Wall Street??

    Curt
     
  3. cdconley

    cdconley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    643
    There is one cure for are economy and the rest of the problems that we face around the world including radical Islamic nut-jobs. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE! Why is the dollar falling, #1 because we have an unsustainable energy trade deficit and nothing else that we produce could possibly make up for it. Hell Exxon Mobile is not even the largest oil company anymore, it’s now a China owned company. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and other oil producing countries would all lose their negotiating power over us and the UN.

    How do we do this? First get rid of the liberal tree hugging A.H.s leading this country. At least for now forget green fuels and concentrate on today’s solutions. That means that we need to tap into the massive fuel reserves that we have in Shale OIL and Coal. We need to shut the Democrats up and build more (a lot more) nuclear power plants. We need to tap into the massive resources in Alaska and off our shores. We need to tell Russia to stick it and start drilling on the Artic shelf. Not only is that international water, but we’re the only country that currently has the technology and resources to do it.

    If we do nothing other then create an atmosphere that will allow the building of Coal to fuel plants, our military could be 100% fuel independent within 2 yrs and our entire nation could be oil independent within a decade. World oil and fuel prices would plummet. Our energy trade imbalance would reverse causing the dollar to skyrocket. American companies and industries would instantly become more profitable because of massively lower energy pricing causing increased tax revenue. Countries like Saudi Arabia would be asking us what foot they need to kiss for us to save them from starvation and if we were smart our answer would be to irradiate all terrorist groups. They would do so faster then you could say lickitysplit.

    So how can this be accomplished. Everyone should only consider voting for a candidate that will commit to energy independence and forget about the candidates like Clinton that have energy plans that spend more, produce less and depend more. We need to at least for now fix the OIL problems and worry about other fuels before our 300 yr supply runs out. And get rid of the Democrats in congress. They have blocked every thing that would lead us to energy independence for the past 30yrs and look what it’s done to us. If we were to stop sending trillions out of this country for energy needs our government would have more tax revenue then they could possibly need (that might be going a little far). Think about it this way, financially how much better would you be if you just stopped paying your house payment every month? How much better off would you be with that big chunk of change in your pocket every month. Well if we stop listening to the green ding dongs we could stop paying the largest expense we as a country have into other countries pockets and start putting it into our own.
     
  4. smokerz

    smokerz TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    473
    **Everyone should only consider voting for a candidate that will commit to energy independence**

    Good idea. They all give lip service, including one (Huckabee) who says it can be done in ten years, but can you name one who understands the problem and has a workable plan?
     
  5. FranzSodia

    FranzSodia TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    67
    CD, you seem to be pretty adamant that the Democrats are the problem regarding energy. I am not saying that they aren't part of the problem. But do you honestly believe that Bush and Cheney are not turning a blind eye to the situation at hand so their oil buddies both foreign and domestic can get even fatter off of us. I don't think that you are that naive. John E.
     
  6. shadow

    shadow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,445
    cd for Pres !!!!
     
  7. cdconley

    cdconley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    643
    smokerz,

    Huckabee is the only one on either side that has stated that energy independence is the key to both financial strength and national security. He is also the only one on either side that has said that it’s his first order of business and the only one that has a complete plan to deal with the issue. Also you might check out the bill that never got to the floor (thanks to democratic congressional control) in 2006. Try a search on David Neeleman energy plan. It can be done but not as long as democrats are bound and determined to NOT use any carbon fuels. We need to 1st use the energy we have now while developing new sources of energy for the future. We need to forget about the democratic plan that amounts to abandonment of what we have so we suffer financially and strategically while we develop new fuels. HUGE mistake!

    Franz,

    This is the way that I look at it. Other then socialist propaganda websites there is nothing to back up your statement. On the other hand, this administration has pushed for drilling in Alaska, Drilling off our coast, countless issues regarding exploration, nuclear expansion, green fuel research and development (the one issue the democrats are relying on) and each and every thing except the last they have been unable to get through congress. Wake up do a little reading but stay off the move-on websites.
     
  8. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    I have a plan that will give us a good start. First begin drilling off the Florida coast and in the Alaskan tundra. Then, start building nuclear power plants. After these are underway, I might think of something else like prohibiting illegal immigrants lacking a drivers license from driving.

    Pat Ireland
     
  9. cdconley

    cdconley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    643
    Pat thats my point. The problem is that the democrats don't want more oil, they don't want us to use, buy or find any oil. They want to watch this country go under while they save us from Globel Warming.
     
  10. smokerz

    smokerz TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    473
    A few points to keep in mind about energy independence:

    First, Huckabee. He has claims - 10 years, but NO plan. He doesn't even understand the problem.

    Alaskan oil. It's produced by for-profit oil companies. Where does the Alaskan crude now go? To where it brings the greatest profit. Mostly to Japan. If we produce more crude in Alaska, where will it go? Japan and China.

    Gulf crude, where will it go? Not to the USA, we have no refining capacity to handle it. Ship it to China; profts for Exxon, screw the USA, leave us the environmental problems.

    Nuclear power? We should be building 300 new plants right now. How many have been approved in the past 20 years under both dems and repubs? 0.

    Shale oil, sands oil? Dead. Nobody interested. No profit.

    Improved CAFE standards could be implemented to reduce oil use. Dems and repubs, no change in the past 25 years, none on the books. Detroit doesn't like the idea.

    Ethanol? The biggest boondoggle ever. We're subsidizing it at $.50/gal, and still nobody wants it. Takes a gallon of diesel to produce a gallon of ethanol. 12 mpg instead of 20. A joke. Cellulosic ethanol? Another joke. Nobody knows how, probably never will.

    Wind, solar? Okay, but still too expensive. Maybe good for 2-5% someday.

    Liquid fuel from coal? Possible. The Nazis did it to fuel the Luftwaffe and Panzers. Still too expensive for Exxon to make a profit, who will put up the money?

    Same question: Which politician has even one clue? Hint: Not Huckabee.

    But you're right about one thing coonley. It's all the dems fault. If we could just have another 8 years of Bush...............
     
  11. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    The start of energy independence requires several things, and not to be redundant, the following should be done -

    The President should declare that energy security will be started by building enough refineries in each state to supply that state's refining capacity equal to 80% at current usage. The addtional 20% capacity will be used as standby in the event of some catastrophic event in another state (Katrina sound familiar?). There is adequate land available just from idled military, Naval, and Air Force bases for building new refineries. They could be leased to refining companies in the short term for $1/year while new refineries are being built and brought on line.

    Every seaboard state shall have capacity to offload and distribute oil from whatever the source (Gulf Coast, Alaska, California Coast, etc.). Pipelines shall be distributed to provide diversity and protection of the supply.

    Immediate plans to build a large number of nuclear reactors will be brought up to date, and narrowed down to a single design, capable of being repeated for all new facilities. As the new facilities are brought on line, older facilities will be closed down and de-activated. Existing coal- and gas-fired plants will be shut down as the conversion to nuclear proceeds.

    CAFE standards will be raised following improvements in technology, not the other way around. There is no technology available, nor in the pipeline, to achieve the idiotic levels being discussed today.

    Eliminate any difference in fuel blends. One blend everwhere.

    As SMOKERZ says, there is little interest now in coal liguefaction or gasification. Just not enough profit in it now. However, it should be developed as an adjunct to oil exploration and refining.

    Ownership in the oil industry will immediately be changed, so that oil exploration and production companies can't own refineries. Refiners can't own distributors, and distributors can't own retail outlets. No interlocking ownership in the supply chain.

    This is not a political problem, but it's being treated like one. It's a supply and demand problem, and needs to be treated like one. However, the government can be pro-active and require that oil "futures" trading be eliminated. The primary reason for $98/bbl oil, is the speculation brought about by weather events, which are, in reality, non-events. Winter weather in the North Sea, and hurricanes in the Caribbean are annual events..

    Enforce the U.S. Constitution. Using the Commerce Clause, the Federal government should set only one standard, California be damned. No single-state exemptions for any reason. As part of the changes, no person will be allowed to hoard mineral rights in any attempt to curtail lawful energy production when buying or selling property.

    Just a start, and fodder for conversation.

    Dennis
     
  12. smokerz

    smokerz TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    473
    Good, Dennis, Good, but -

    start of energy independence requires several things, and not to be redundant, the following should be done -

    The President should declare that energy security will be started by building enough refineries in each state to supply that state's refining capacity equal to 80% at current usage. The addtional 20% capacity will be used as standby in the event of some catastrophic event in another state (Katrina sound familiar?). There is adequate land available just from idled military, Naval, and Air Force bases for building new refineries. They could be leased to refining companies in the short term for $1/year while new refineries are being built and brought on line.

    {All those refineries may not generate profits, so who will pay for building them? For-profit companies won't}

    Every seaboard state shall have capacity to offload and distribute oil from whatever the source (Gulf Coast, Alaska, California Coast, etc.). Pipelines shall be distributed to provide diversity and protection of the supply.

    {Same question, many of those ports will be not profitable. Who will pay the bill?}

    Immediate plans to build a large number of nuclear reactors will be brought up to date, and narrowed down to a single design, capable of being repeated for all new facilities. As the new facilities are brought on line, older facilities will be closed down and de-activated. Existing coal- and gas-fired plants will be shut down as the conversion to nuclear proceeds.

    {Same question. In a for-profit scheme, who will pay for all the new power plants? Who will pay to close the old ones which now generate profits?}

    CAFE standards will be raised following improvements in technology, not the other way around. There is no technology available, nor in the pipeline, to achieve the idiotic levels being discussed today.

    {Actually, the technology is available right now, hybrids from Toyota, Honda and Ford}

    Eliminate any difference in fuel blends. One blend everwhere.

    {5-10% ethanol is becoming universal due to EPA regs, and that's about all the ethanol we can produce, however it saves no petroleum since so much diesel is used to produce it.}

    As SMOKERZ says, there is little interest now in coal liguefaction or gasification. Just not enough profit in it now. However, it should be developed as an adjunct to oil exploration and refining.

    {Who will pay the bill? Not for-profit business.}

    Ownership in the oil industry will immediately be changed, so that oil exploration and production companies can't own refineries. Refiners can't own distributors, and distributors can't own retail outlets. No interlocking ownership in the supply chain.

    {Nationalization? Interference with the free-market system?}

    This is not a political problem, but it's being treated like one. It's a supply and demand problem, and needs to be treated like one. However, the government can be pro-active and require that oil "futures" trading be eliminated. The primary reason for $98/bbl oil, is the speculation brought about by weather events, which are, in reality, non-events. Winter weather in the North Sea, and hurricanes in the Caribbean are annual events..

    {We could stop futures traing on the CBOT, but how could we stop futures trading in London, Tokyo, Peking?}

    Enforce the U.S. Constitution. Using the Commerce Clause, the Federal government should set only one standard, California be damned. No single-state exemptions for any reason. As part of the changes, no person will be allowed to hoard mineral rights in any attempt to curtail lawful energy production when buying or selling property.

    {Mineral rights are owned as real property, by individuals and corporations. Would we confiscate or nationalize them?}

    Just a start, and fodder for conversation.

    {Actually, dennis, I like some of your thoughts, but you'd be immediately attacked as a commie-marxist socialist bed-wetter. Where's your faith in the free market system?}

    Dennis
     
  13. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Actually, there is nothing in my argument which calls for nationalization or confiscation of any assets. Today, we do not engage in pure laissez faire capitalization. There are also limits on what people do with propery or real assets. Deed restrictions are written into a lot of real estate sales, some driven by state and Federal laws.

    The tax codes have been used in the past to move economic trends. Investment tax credits, among others, have been used selectively to prod private companies to point their investments. There are more than enough ports, formerly used by the U.S. Navy (Charleston, SC is but one), to provide short-term use and developed into profitable operations. Also, rather than go through the proposed expensive reclamation of military bases, why not lease them to refiners?

    The defense of the American economy is as critical as any military threat to our military. We developed the "two-ocean" navy to protect our commerce on the high seas. Our protection of U.S. commercial interests date back to the earliest days of the Republic. We also developed a nuclear deterrent when threatened by the Soviets after WWII. Energy protection today, is every bit as important.

    As a matter of fact, even though some technology exists for high-mileage vehicles, that technology does not extrapolate out to high-capacity family vehicle requirements. There will need to be quantum leaps in materials technology to accomplish weight reductions coupled with high-survivability in vehicle crashes. That doesn't exist today.

    I never want a "five-year-plan" mentality by the government, but judicious guidance using the tax code might provide a lot of the answers.

    Dennis
     
  14. smartass

    smartass TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    doda, dodo, nobody drove 55 when it was the law so that won't do anything. Remember, you can legally drive 55 now, just like you can shoot 7/8 oz loads now.

    Setting idiotic speed limits which are ignored is a real answer- NOT
     
  15. smartass

    smartass TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    chuckie, are you related to Jimmy "America's best days are behind us" Carter?
     
  16. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    If and only IF we are going to have a Depression in 5-10 yrs., then a person's best bet is to load up on all the "borrowed money" that can be had. Turn it into liquid (gold, etc) assests and hide it until the "Big Crunch" hits. Claim bankruptcy and live like a king.

    Very simple with the rules and greedy lenders....

    Curt
     
  17. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Curt- Try claiming bankruptcy with a lot of liquid assets and see what happens.

    Pat Ireland
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.