McCain raised $1.1 million from oil and gas industry executives and employees in June

[Newjack88]

<p>McCain raised $1.1 million from oil and gas industry executives and employees in June. I think we should all keep this in mind when considering his changing his position on expanding offshore drilling.</p>

<p>Also, anyone notice how no one is asking how much expanding offshore drilling will cost? I think Obama is missing a rather good opportunity here. How is McCain going to pay for his “do it all” energy policy?</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]</p>

<p>

@Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling by Matthew Mosk

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling. </p>

<p>Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month – three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban – compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

</p>

[tiff90]

<p>Wounder how no one is asking obama where is is going to get the billlions of dollars to pay for green energy research?
I would rather pay a little more money to get oil here than for our money to end up supporting our enemies.
We need to end our dependencey on foriegn countries for oil. The biggest reason McCain is now supporting offshore drilling is because so many americans are complaining about the cost of gas, and they think offshore drilling will help. McCain does not support drilling in certain enviornmental places.
BO has yet to explain where he’s getting the billions to support research for green energy.</p>

[alwaysamom]

<p>

I would rather pay a little more money to get oil here than for our money to end up supporting our enemies.

</p>

<p>What enemies would those be?</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

Also, anyone notice how no one is asking how much expanding offshore drilling will cost?

Maybe they’re not asking because it’s the oil companies who make the investment and take the risk.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Wounder how no one is asking obama where is is going to get the billlions of dollars to pay for green energy research?

</p>

<p>The reason why McCain couldn’t counterattack with this line is because he is for pumping money into alternative energy research AND for building more nuclear power plants AND for building more coal power plants AND for expanding offshore drilling.</p>

<p>

Maybe they’re not asking because it’s the oil companies who make the investment and take the risk.

</p>

<p>First of all, I think that in any bill that was proposed or passed by Congress expanding offshore drilling would include subsidies for the oil companies specifically to help lessen the risk of the investment. Second, the money spent on looking for more oil is money that could be spent researching alternative energy and looking for practical, longterm solutions.</p>

[tega]

<p>I think I am more concerned about the Dick Cheney’s energy bill that Obama voted for. The bill was loaded with goodies for the big energy industry. </p>

<p>Maybe Obama has not received the memo yet; Corn is not a good source of producing ethanol, more energy is needed to produce ethanol from corn. This defeats the purpose of combatting green house emissions (Corn also increases the price of food). </p>

<p>Get rid of the tariffs on ethanol from Brazil, the Brazilians have perfected how to make ethanol from sugarcane. Don’t vote for any person who is a protectionist. 95% of the worlds population live outside this country, we can’t live in a bubble.</p>

<p>If we want any meaningful long term plans for energy we should follow Brazil’s example. Get rid of the corn lobbyist.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>tega:
“I think I am more concerned about the Dick Cheney’s energy bill that Obama voted for. The bill was loaded with goodies for the big energy industry.”</p>

<p>

@Fact Check.org

The mailer further charges that Obama “voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies.” Obama did vote for the 2005 energy bill to which Clinton refers. But as we’ve said more than once before, her claim that the legislation resulted in large tax breaks for the oil industry is misleading. </p>

<p>In fact, the bill President Bush signed into law in 2005 actually raised taxes on the oil industry overall. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Energy Policy Act “included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, [the act] provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years.”</p>

<p>Many subsidies were proposed during debate, but they didn’t make it into the final bill, which contained a total of $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of which didn’t go to the oil industry. Instead, they benefited electric utilities and nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

</p>

<p>“Maybe Obama has not received the memo yet; Corn is not a good source of producing ethanol, more energy is needed to produce ethanol from corn. This defeats the purpose of combatting green house emissions (Corn also increases the price of food). Get rid of the tariffs on ethanol from Brazil, the Brazilians have perfected how to make ethanol from sugarcane.”</p>

<p>First of all, if we start importing ethanol from Brazil, we’re not exactly addressing our issues with energy security. Instead of relying on the Middle East for oil we’d be relying on Brazil for ethanol.</p>

<p>Second, I don’t really agree with ethanol period–if it’s made from something that is food or could be turned into food. I think that pursuing ethanol would be perfectly fine if there weren’t people going hungry around the world–but there are.</p>

<p>I know that Obama has supported ethanol in the past and has been somewhat of an advocate for it during this campaign, but it seems as though it’s an issue Obama would be willing to revise his position on it. That said, I think that Obama is in favor of keeping prices relatively high–like $2.00 or $3.00 a gallon at least. Obama has been talking a lot about investing in infrastructure–something the Republicans are either opposed to or indifferent towards–and I think that Obama sees that due to high gas prices there’s a chance for America to finally modernize and expand the use of public transportation.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

McCain raised $1.1 million from oil and gas industry executives and employees in June. I think we should all keep this in mind when considering his changing his position on expanding offshore drilling.

Yeah, I’ll keep in mind that McCain’s policies are better than Obama’s.</p>

<p>

Also, anyone notice how no one is asking how much expanding offshore drilling will cost?

That’s because it’s a good investment and private industry does it automatically.</p>

<p>

I think Obama is missing a rather good opportunity here. How is McCain going to pay for his “do it all” energy policy?

Private investors looking for a good return on their money. How does that involve the government again?</p>

[tiff90]

<p>The Saudi Connection in US News article investigates how the saudi arabians helped finance jihadist groups, and where bin laden and al q received much money from.
BO is commiting around $100 billion in 10 years for alt energy research, but has yet to say how that money will be raised.
Has mcCain said the gov will incure costs to open offshore drilling? I though oil companies would buy those rights, and harbor the costs.
Now I don’t remeber McCain pledging gov money to build nucluer and coal facilities, thought individual companies would build and pay for said plants.
BO is pledging so much more money than McCain for alt energy, but it will take years for the US to ween itself off of oil, so we need to find immediate energy sources until the time comes when we will be green. It is wrong to not accept offshore drilling because you think congress may give subsidies to oil companies, as that is purely speculative. If the cost is incured solely by oil companies, there really isn’t an issue besides protecting certain parts of the enviornment.
We need to explore all options to sustain ourselves until we find an alt energy source, which means investing in both.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

First of all, I think that in any bill that was proposed or passed by Congress expanding offshore drilling would include subsidies for the oil companies specifically to help lessen the risk of the investment. Second, the money spent on looking for more oil is money that could be spent researching alternative energy and looking for practical, longterm solutions.

Regarding the subsidies - I don’t think there should be any. Let the oil companies assume the risk and reap the rewards. Why do you think the US would subsidize them? Is that in the proposal?</p>

<p>The oil companies are in the business of selling oil. They’re under no obligation, and shouldn’t be, to spend their money on researching alternative energies (although some do it anyway - probably largely PR). Maybe you meant the government funds, if any.</p>

[tega]

<p>

Many subsidies were proposed during debate, but they didn’t make it into the final bill, which contained a total of $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of which didn’t go to the oil industry. Instead, they benefited electric utilities and nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

</p>

<p>Search the NYTIMES for Obama and Exelon, and why he voted for that Bill. </p>

<p>

First of all, if we start importing ethanol from Brazil, we’re not exactly addressing our issues with energy security. Instead of relying on the Middle East for oil we’d be relying on Brazil for ethanol.

</p>

<p>It took Brazil 30 years to address their energy issues, and it is going to take us about the same time. The production of ethanol from corn is not an efficient way to produce ethanol. Until we can be produce ethanol from other sources, it is economically efficient to import ethanol from Brazil. There are a lot of sources in the pipeline, some might take 5 years, 10 years etc. </p>

<p>

Second, I don’t really agree with ethanol period–if it’s made from something that is food or could be turned into food. I think that pursuing ethanol would be perfectly fine if there weren’t people going hungry around the world–but there are.

</p>

<p>That is my point, we shouldn’t be using corn to produce ethanol. </p>

<p>

I know that Obama has supported ethanol in the past and has been somewhat of an advocate for it during this campaign, but it seems as though it’s an issue Obama would be willing to revise his position on it.

</p>

<p>Obama still supports ethanol from corn, again, search the NYTIMES for Obama and the corn lobbyists (he was even flying in their corporate jets). I don’t think he will revise his position, the corn lobbyists have given him too much money for him to ignore them. </p>

<p>

That said, I think that Obama is in favor of keeping prices relatively high–like $2.00 or $3.00 a gallon at least. Obama has been talking a lot about investing in infrastructure–something the Republicans are either opposed to or indifferent towards–and I think that Obama sees that due to high gas prices there’s a chance for America to finally modernize and expand the use of public transportation.

</p>

<p>I don’t think McCain is opposed to infrastructure improvements, in fact, he has been talking about the MN bridge a lot, and the need to make sure that the highway funds are actually used to repair the country’s infrastructures (about 8% is used for pork projects). </p>

<p>McCain also thinks this is a perfect opportunity for us to fundamentally change our energy policies. We need to explore all the energy we have in this country while we wait for the electric and hydrogen cars to be mass produced. Read his Lexington Project if you are interested.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

Second, I don’t really agree with ethanol period–if it’s made from something that is food or could be turned into food. I think that pursuing ethanol would be perfectly fine if there weren’t people going hungry around the world–but there are.

</p>

<p>Brazil is producing their ethanol from sugar cane which is way more efficient to extract ethanol from than corn. The US doesn’t have the right climate to produce vast amount of sugar cane.</p>

<p>Research is ongoing to improve the efficiency of extracting ethanol from other vegetative matter including the ‘throwaway’ part of the plant like the stalk and husks. If this ever reaches a breakthrough, maybe we could have our ethanol and eat it too (the corn that is).</p>

[collegemom16]

<p>Isn’t there a great deal of sugar cane grown in Hawaii?</p>

[marite]

<p>Collegemom:</p>

<p>Not enough to make a difference. </p>

<p>Take a look at the opening paragraph of this profile of Obama by Larissa MacFarquhar (May 2007):</p>

<p>It does not look like Obama wants to make ethanol out of corn but out of switchgrass but is listening to farmers’ concern about depleting the soil.</p>

<p>

Begin in farm country, late last summer, no particular day. Carmi, Illinois—a town on the Little Wabash River, down in the southern tip of the state, twenty-five miles from Kentucky, population about fifty-five hundred. A group of twelve farmers—burly white men with ruddy complexions and very short hair—sitting around a rectangle of pushed-together tables in a nondescript room, talking with their junior senator, Barack Obama. It was long before Obama decided to run for President, and he wasn’t in a rush. He sat at one end of the tables, leaning back in his chair, his knee propped against the table edge. He wore a tie but had removed his jacket and rolled up his shirtsleeves. A young farmer complained about the Jones Act, a 1920 law that he felt was partly responsible for a detrimental consolidation in the barge market. Another farmer had a question about ethanol.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Profiles:</a> The Conciliator: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar]Profiles:”>Barack Obama, Before He Was President | The New Yorker)</p>

[originaloog]

<p>That my explain McCain’s flip flop on off shore drilling.</p>

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>^ Yeah hearing Obama talk just takes my IQ down a few points. What does this ethanol have to do with drilling for oil. Its about as economically and financially pragmatic on a large scale as solar power…hell, maybe less.</p>

<p>to alwaysamom: the enemies=Saudis and most other Arab nations.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

That my explain McCain’s flip flop on off shore drilling.

You know what might also explain it? The price environment for crude oil and the fact that it is in much more demand now.</p>

[marite]

<p>I don’t think offshore drilling should be an automatic No-No on the part of Democrats. As in any plan, there are pluses and minuses. For example, how would off-shore drilling affect the tourist industry and the fishing industry? How much would be gained from lower gas prices and less reliance on foreign oil and how much would be lost from lost tourist dollars? This is the kind of questions that I wish were addressed.</p>

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>Yeah but you understand Democrats will oppose most reasonably plans no matter what. Look at the DC vs Heller case for example.</p>

[marite]

<p>Really? news to me and I’m a Democrat.</p>