It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries


www.foxnews.com

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
So the government thinks it would be best for the government if the government controlled the oil. Heck, I don't know who I'd rather have in charge of that. This is the kind of thing I could see not being covered in the MSM.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Oh great, Nancy Pelosi is Hugo Chavez in disguise...nationalizing? are you serious...yeah, let's completely screw the refiners over so they never build another one in the U.S. in fear of it too being nationalized....brilliant. Why do you think U.S. oil companies are hesitant to build refineries and pump oil in some of these socialist countries? Congress is part of the problem and needs to get the hell out of the way, the only reason we don't have more refineries is because of Congress. I think we should just clone Ron Paul (and maybe Kucinich for some balance...and his wife too
) so we can fill Congress and the Senate with him/them.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


Nationalizing oil? That sounds a bit like what Hugo Chavez did with the oil and gas sector down in Venezuela. It's apparently working to his advantage down there.

However, I'm not comfortable with the idea of having the government control big oil. It seems that these two sectors are seedy bedfellows to begin with.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by Parabol
However, I'm not comfortable with the idea of having the government control big oil. It seems that these two sectors are seedy bedfellows to begin with.


Yeah that's my problem to, I don't profess to know much about nationalization of resources but seeing our govt and oil grow more together doesn't sound good. But then how much power does that take away from Big Oil?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Leave it to the Dems to propose the nationalization of refineries.

This is just as outrageous as the nationalization of healthcare. It makes no sense especially since the government cannot do anything correctly. Plus, this is NOT the governments role. Socialism at it's best. ** SIGH **



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
They will do anything but fix the real problem and that is the point. Congress was told weeks ago how to fix this problem.

I saw three former oil regulators testify to this on C-span and the senators said well then this is what we have to fix and they never did. Here is the video that you will need the free Real-player to watch.
commerce.senate.gov...

seekingalpha.com...=news_sitemap

Greenberger's Testimony: I-Banks Control the Energy Market

Michael Greenberger, the former head of the CFTC's Division of Trading and Markets, testified yesterday before the Senate Commerce Committee on the topic of Energy Market Manipulation. He stated that the investment banks, namely Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), control the price of oil and natural gas through the ICE futures market. He cited that Morgan Stanley currently owns 27% of the natural gas futures.

He stated that former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas sneaked the Enron loophole through a large piece of insignificant legislation years ago: the result was that regulations upon the futures industry were abandoned. This loophole eventually allowed the current CDO-subprime crisis, and the current energy market crisis because regulations, which once protected the market from manipulation, are no longer enforcable.

Greenberger suggested that the current attempt of closing the Enron loophole by Senator Levin through the Farm Bill, would not work - as it would leave the government with the constant burden of proof to prove manipulation was occurring. Also it would only be enforcable on domestic market manipulators and not international ones.

Greenberger said that legislation immediately closing the Enron Loophole with a broader, international scope would stop market manipulation and would cause oil prices to plunge over 25% overnight.


Yes we need more drilling in the places they have found loads of oil in but we will need more refineries not to be controlled by a screwed up government. We currently have enough oil on the market, Its just locked up in it.

P.S. Call your Congressmen or Congresswoman and tell them to fix this now before on economy dies completely.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Government control and oversight over things like oil, natural resources, currency and money supply, farming and agriculture, mainstream media outlets, etc, is way better than allowing control of all those things slip into private corporate hands (FASCISM), wouldn't you say?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


I agree, definitely clone Kucinich's wife and a few more Ron Paul's. As if we weren't practically a soviet style communist country already. China is far more capitalistic than the US is today. Government commands nearly 50% of our paycheck (including local gov.).

Is there some reason why we so quickly forget what happens to command and control economies? (Hint they create shortages). Think about what this would mean. The govt. will be making so much money off of oil that they would never permit alternative energy to thrive. (Not that they allow much now).



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Government control and oversight over things like oil, natural resources, currency and money supply, farming and agriculture, mainstream media outlets, etc, is way better than allowing control of all those things slip into private corporate hands (FASCISM), wouldn't you say?

Umm....do you know the definition of fascism? Apparently not because your comment makes no sense and is just the opposite.

Fascism is a government controlled by a dictator. Government has its place to make sure there is sensible oversight but capitalism is what drives innovation and makes industry work and our lives better.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Fascism is a government controlled by a dictator.


No, that's a dictatorship



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well guys I hate to say it but I disagree with YOU ALL. The fact is it should be nationalized. Energy is national security which is one of the FEW things the government should be handling. Not only that the hundreds of millions we would save paying these chump CEOs. The fact is we go to war for oil which puts it part of national security and I dont think we need to go to war to make these CEOs wealthier. Look what Dubai and what not did with their oil. The built up their infrastructure and now becoming HUGE tourists hot spots. I know you guys will say Im big government but thats not right. I think the federal government needs to be out of everything but national security, infrastructure, & well thats pretty much it.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Government control and oversight over things like oil, natural resources, currency and money supply, farming and agriculture, mainstream media outlets, etc, is way better than allowing control of all those things slip into private corporate hands (FASCISM), wouldn't you say?


LOL, no Comrade I wouldn't say, as a matter of fact what you propose is absolute Communism. The 20th century proved how well that worked. Governments are poor innovators, and as a matter of fact profit motive is probably the most potent driver of innovation. I'll be the first to admit that totally unrestrained Free Market Capitalism can be just as oppressive as any other market system, but a Free Market System with a government to enforce rules that those governed feel in their best interest, provide a level playing field, break cartels and monopolies, and protect consumers has proven to be superior to any centrally controlled economy.

As I was writing this post i heard the replay of the source on this OP. Want guaranteed $10/gallon gas? This is a sure way to get it. If gvernment were to control energy where would the motivation to create alternative sources come from. Sure I'd trust a government that never repeals a tax once set to allow competition to a major source of income.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by jefwane]

[edit on 18-6-2008 by jefwane]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Fascism is a government controlled by a dictator.


No, that's a dictatorship

I guess you should let 'mr. webster' become your friend.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Actually fascism is defined in several ways one of the main definitions is big business controlling the government. That sir is fascism and we are living it today. That the dems and republicans for that.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Actually fascism is defined in several ways one of the main definitions is big business controlling the government.

That is NOT fascism!
I don't know what twisted liberal book you got that definition from but that is not correct.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


You got it!

Corporations now control currency, oil, media - pretty much everything of importance in the US.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mybigunit
Actually fascism is defined in several ways one of the main definitions is big business controlling the government.

That is NOT fascism!
I don't know what twisted liberal book you got that definition from but that is not correct.


Hmmmm




Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."


Straight from the mouths of a dictator....like I said there are many meanings you can look at webster or wiki and it is interpreted in many ways. Depends on who you talk to but generally these days fascism is corporate owned government.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


One might argue that the US is currently like a dictatorship, with Bush as the dictator - but, we all know that he really answers to corporate puppetmasters



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
reply to post by mybigunit
 


You got it!

Corporations now control currency, oil, media - pretty much everything of importance in the US.


Yes thank you
I have the constitution to back me up on this also. Oil is national security and if it wasnt then we wouldnt be going to war for it would we? I think its pathetic that while all these other countries are profiting huge and putting all this oil money on infrastructure and to the people ours is going no where but in the hands of a select few. We have levies breaching, roads cracking, and bridges crumbling but hey thats ok as long as the Exxon Ex-CEO gets his $400 million pay package. Pfft. It needs to be nationalized and as far as Im concerned there is no debate.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join