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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



Originally posted by mybigunit
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.


mybigunit, I usually agree with your way of thinking, but not this time. Surely you can't be in favor of wealth re-distribution? So an oil exec makes $100 million. Bill Gates is worth about $50 billion. Should we raid his bank account? How about Oprah? Or rap stars? Or pro athletes?

When would it stop, in your model of the world?

The gov't would just view it as another cash cow to rape.


[edit on 19-6-2008 by jsobecky]




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Roads, bridges, and damns the government should be taking care of. Obviously the government in its current state cant handle much but that is because their hands are in to many pies.

States should handle their own roads and bridges.
If you think the federal government should control these things then perhaps the government should curb all the social welfare programs, then there would be plenty of money for infrastructure.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Bingo.

Welcome to Europe


Wealth distribution is a huge problem. Costly wealth faire state, which certain members of society just see it as a "the government will feed me" mentality and the middle classes feel persecuted by the mindless proletarians.

Nationalisation of oil means its profits are going to become a political minefield. The legislative chambers and government will see it as extra income to waste



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
One of the first things that came to mind when I saw this thread was the memorable quote from Ronald Reagan:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Nationalizing oil is not wealth redistribution at all its taking over another leg of our national security. A leg that should not be exploited for the purpose of making a select few rich. Like I said government in my eyes have 2 roles and thats it national security and infrastructure.

I like to remind people of Dubai who used their oil money to build a massive updated infrastructure that is putting ours to shame. But hey as long as Exxons boys get their $84 million dollar pay who cares about the roads and bridges right?

Rap stars and Oprah are not national security issues. We the people can go without Oprah but try going without oil considering our government has us so reliant on it. Cant be done and as we see oil makes affects EVERYTHING one way or another.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


The federal government shouldnt up keep the roads and bridges let me ask you a question if we are attacked who is going to use those roads and bridges? The federal military thats who. Its in the governments interests to have updated roads and bridges so they need to handle it.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


And I agree with Ron Paul, Fema, Education, Health Care, war on drugs, and Welfare should be up to the states and not the federal government. But Ron Paul even agrees that the government has SOME role and national security is one of them my friends. As far as the planned economy we are doing this anyways have you heard of the FED? Nationalizing oil is not economy planning it is taking energy which is a requirement for a government and an economy to run and safeguarding it from exploitation. Like Maxmars said Water is run by government?

[edit on 19-6-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Right you are!
Thats why the interstates were built in the first place.
They really liked the idea of the Autobahn.
IKE! where are you when we need you most!
I'd say nationalize IF we had a trust worthy government.
But since that idea is such a joke.
What can we do?
But remember the oil and mineral rights really belong to the people in the first place.
And i see you guys jokeing about Chavez, but most of his people (or the ones that don't work for us) really are behind him. And the country has improved somewhat now that is is out from under the US thumb so....
Can't argue with success even though i think the guy is a nut.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


The federal government shouldnt up keep the roads and bridges let me ask you a question if we are attacked who is going to use those roads and bridges? The federal military thats who. Its in the governments interests to have updated roads and bridges so they need to handle it.

That is sort of stretching it a bit, don't you think?
Using your same analogy, if we are attacked, some soldiers might have to use my house as a safe house or my car because their humvee got damaged. So by your logic, the government should pay me for my house and car or at least for the upkeep of them, just in case something happens.
Look, the only roads the government should pay for are interstates because they are well, interstates.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


The roads are on government land and your house is not there is a difference. So no the government shouldnt have to pay you. Then there is your "well your using analogies" why do you think the interstate was created in the first place? Well it was built in case we were attacked we would have a fast way to transport military equipment. I cant even believe we are debating the fact that government should take care of roads and bridges...oil is debatable but roads and bridges oh and Dams too there is not even a debate there.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 

Except for interstates, the state government should take care of roads and bridges. You did not specify only interstates. You said all roads. Another point, the federal government does not own the land which all roads are paved on.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 



I tell you what in a Mybigunit country which in 2012 when I run this is what Ill be running on

Issues and which government handles ...

Money issued and set by government....Fed gone
IRS gone
National Security including military, energy, & infrastructure done by federal government. All bases and troops would come home except for afghanistan and Iraq in which I would only leave special forces there till our duties are met. Then they too would come home.

Health Care states duty
law enforcement and civil services state and local government
Welfare States duty
War on Drugs states duty government does not have the right to tell a person whether or not he can smoke a joint. Just like the federal government is not required to pay for this persons medical either.
Fema States duty people in Montana shouldnt have to pay for people to live in Florida
Education federal governments duty but not under current system.. Down with the dept of education and use polish style education platform

With the above federal duties the income tax would be wiped out essentially giving us the ability to get rid of the IRS. Approx total government budget would be 700 billion with most of that going to military. The money we would make from nationalizing oil and other excise and tariffs would be more than enough to pay for the tiny government I have created.

Umm I dont have my list but what other issues am I missing here...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



The government has two roles:

Security

Enforcement of contracts.

Period.

Funding the infrastructure is done now without nationalization. There is no reason to nationalize; every goal can be achieved without natonalization.

Except: Wealth Re-distribution. But that should not be a goal, unless you are looking to make this country a socialist nation.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Actually, there's a Constitutional provision protecting your home from becoming military housing at their whim. If there wasn't and you were expected top house them I would anticipate you asking for compensation of some kind for the service. The businesses get compensated for serving the military, why wouldn't you? But I digress.

The problem with nationalizing the oil industry - the ONLY problem - is the untrustworthiness of a government overrun by corporate-controlled policy makers.

Those of you crying socialism and wealth-redistribution seem to be relying on something unstated. You seem to think that nationalizing a natural resource is a threat to the free market. I'm unclear on what the corporate sector has done to earn such trust? Looking around at our current situation, I'm not sure we are in the same reality.

These people, the one's who have gotten us where we are economically today, ARE the free marketeers. Just because they work in the government does not free them from their corporate ties, as can easily be seen by what they do after they leave government service. They flinch whenever someone utters the words 'oversight' or 'transparency' and they live by the protection of 'business confidentiality' and 'trade secrets.'

If you say the government can't be trusted - you are incorrect. The correct form of the statement is THIS government can't be trusted. This government belongs to corporate America, not the population. The government - as it is currently manned - has demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the 'non-corporate' citizen. Favoring those who amass wealth over those who can only consume.

Examine most of the legislation created in the last century - it seems all directed at empowering, protecting, and promoting commercial interests. Nearly every piece of legislation aimed at reducing the suffering of citizens is deemed 'welfare' and stigmatized as such.

Our courts favor the UCC over the Constitution. Personal Insolvency is migrating more every year towards becoming a crime - and such attitudes can be witnessed even here on ATS.

This is all to say that as things stand today NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED with our national wealth - our natural resources - but these resources MUST be used for the benefit of our people! The idea of government involvement by virtue of nationalization is to ensure that WE ALL have a say - and have the ability to audit what happens to our common wealth. How on earth would I ever concede to allow Big Oil to control it, and expect them to treat us fairly? HAVE THEY EVER?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Funding the infrastructure is done now without nationalization. There is no reason to nationalize; every goal can be achieved without natonalization.

Except: Wealth Re-distribution. But that should not be a goal, unless you are looking to make this country a socialist nation.


You keep saying wealth redistribution but let me ask you a question isnt it wealth redistribution under the current system? I pay to subsidize these guys, our military pays with their lives to make sure they have areas to pump oil and who reaps all the benefits?

The money comes from the government to give to the private contractors in most cases for infrastructure. But both the dept of transportation which would be abolished under my administration and the contractors they use are all incompetent.

We will have to agree to disagree here I feel energy is part of national security and you dont think it is and that is where we disagree. But let me ask you this..if oil wasnt as important is it is then why should I as a private citizen have to pay to subsidize big oil?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 

We agree more than we disagree. I would vote for you instead of McCain if that was your platform. Besides from a few minor disagreements, I agree with you that we need WAY LESS government.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


a star for you sir this is what Ive been trying to say between my last 10 posts but you did it in one and a lot more eloquent.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
Well heck, how many people in the Bush cabinet were former oil executives anyway?! They've had no luck securing Iraq's oil...


Actually that's not true. Read this.

Western Oil Giants Near Deals with Iraq
www.dallasnews.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Oh I know we agree more than disagree I just needed to point out my overall platform because I know some in here will get the impression that I am big government when I am not. Nationalizing oil helps to get rid of the income tax plus helps to pay for the military that protects us and secures oil. I am looking at a bigger picture than most and the less money we as citizens have to pay the better off our economy will be off. Nationalizing oil helps pay for MOST of my federal governments expenses. It wouldnt do this now however because out government is so fat and bloated ...btw im running in florida or Ia you will know me cause Ill let u know when the time is right who I am




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join