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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




Originally posted by Maxmars
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.


What you're referring to is the Third Amendment.


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


I disagree. The entire concept is wrong. Gov't does not belong in the business of owning any commerce.


Originally posted by Maxmars
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.


Either you believe in capitalism and free markets, or you don't. What you are advocating is socialism. And that is a dangerous, slippery slope to a stagnating economy and world. It's main vice is that it kills entrepeneurism and competition.


Originally posted by Maxmars

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!

Since when is the oil underneath the Saudi Arabian desert "our national wealth"? Someone had to invest in the infrastructure that delivers it to the gas pump.

We need a comprehensive energy policy, no doubt about it. But socialism is not the answer.




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Since when is the oil underneath the Saudi Arabian desert "our national wealth"? Someone had to invest in the infrastructure that delivers it to the gas pump.

We need a comprehensive energy policy, no doubt about it. But socialism is not the answer.


Well the oil under Iraq is ours because it is OUR tax dollars and OUR citizens lives that were paid to secure it. BTW Im against the war in Iraq as you know but if we fought for the oil which is why we went in and to make Bushs other cronies rich like Blackwater then damnit we better get the oil and we the people should be the ones who get a piece of the pie. So far this piece has not come right now we pay $4 for gas and a ton in taxes. Gee thanks


[edit on 19-6-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


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.


I don't have any love for big oil, but I feel you are blaming the oil companies for high gas prices. How many times can it be said that they don't have anything to do with the high price of gas? They are JUST the distributor. If they controlled the price of gas, then why would Exxon Mobile be doing this?


Oil giant Exxon Mobile is moving out of the US retail gasoline market.

The Exxon Mobile brand may still be around, but the current oil squeeze has seen off the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, Exxon Mobile Corp.

The Irving, TX-headquartered company announced on June 12 that it was moving itself out of the retail gasoline industry, following in the steps of several other major oil companies, and selling off its remaining 820 gas stations to distributors. Around 12,000 Exxon Mobile-branded stations are already owned by other distributors.


Source: www.energydigital.net...

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something about your post.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Actually, there's a Constitutional provision protecting your home from becoming military housing at their whim.

Which provision?
If you mean the 3rd Amendment, it does not apply if the U.S. is attacked which is what we were discussing. That Amendment specifically states during peacetime.


You seem to think that nationalizing a natural resource is a threat to the free market.

That is correct. Anytime government gets involved with the free market, there is always a threat.


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.

I guess not because you must be living under a rock. Please explain how the free market has gotton us into our current situation.
The free market is what has made the U.S. a superpower and which has given us such a great standard of living.


Examine most of the legislation created in the last century - it seems all directed at empowering, protecting, and promoting commercial interests.

No, it seems more like government getting involved and over-taxing and over-regulating everything.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



Originally posted by mybigunit
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?


Everyone benefits. The execs benefit from fat paychecks. You and I benefit by being able to drive up to the pump at any time, day or night, and buying as much as we can afford. And by heating our homes.

Unfair that the exec benefits more? Reward comes from risk.


Originally posted by mybigunit

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?

Oh, I believe that energy is directly related to national security. Of course it is. Our differences lie in the solutions we propose.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

That is correct. Anytime government gets involved with the free market, there is always a threat.


Like if they get involved by lets say bailing out banks and not letting them go bankrupt? Or getting involved by lets say big subsidize for big oil and big ag? See this is what you have to open your eyes to whattheory the government gets involved already when it comes to saving big businesses ars but when it comes to doing anything else everyone calls it a slippery slope. Just today the government comes out and says we need to give more power to the FED. WHAT!@($#*#W$ The same thing that causes our problems we are going to give more power to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WoW crazy but as long as big banks are getting greased who cares right?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
All this talk of nationalizing oil refineries and health care. I wonder if this means Barack Obama will choose a running mate that has a masters degree or higher in business ...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Unfair that the exec benefits more? Reward comes from risk.



How much risk is there when the government backstops you? I think the oil companies should of paid Blackwater to topple Sadam himself. Why should we have to pay in taxes and in lives for the private oil company? Am I making sense? In a sense we are already nationalized but all the rewards go to the oil execs and not to the people. Filling up day and night can be accomplished with nationalized too you fill up your water in the sink and take a shower day and night dont you?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by jsobecky

Since when is the oil underneath the Saudi Arabian desert "our national wealth"? Someone had to invest in the infrastructure that delivers it to the gas pump.

We need a comprehensive energy policy, no doubt about it. But socialism is not the answer.


Well the oil under Iraq is ours because it is OUR tax dollars and OUR citizens lives that were paid to secure it. BTW Im against the war in Iraq as you know but if we fought for the oil which is why we went in and to make Bushs other cronies rich like Blackwater then damnit we better get the oil and we the people should be the ones who get a piece of the pie. So far this piece has not come right now we pay $4 for gas and a ton in taxes. Gee thanks


[edit on 19-6-2008 by mybigunit]


Wooo! You got some big ones, saying that! Not saying I totally disagree with you, but look out for the incoming!



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Like if they get involved by lets say bailing out banks and not letting them go bankrupt?

Yes, just like that.
The government should not have bailed out the banks. The banks made the loans so let them deal with the consequences.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Yeah I can see the U2Us coming now....Dear Mybigunit Im offended when you say......you should see all the U2Us Im getting in that comparing Iowa to New Orleans thread that is burning up. Im getting called a racist and bigot and everything else
Sometimes the truth does hurt....



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by jsobecky


Unfair that the exec benefits more? Reward comes from risk.



I think the oil companies should of paid Blackwater to topple Sadam himself.


Very interesting suggestion, I wonder what would have happened if big oil had chosen to do that. A corporation hiring a private army to acquire resources, hmmm. Need to call my bosses real quick...

Ha, ok, not really but I wonder how the public would have reacted. Hell, there's really not much we could have done in terms of business. What, am I not going to put gas in my car? Which is what scares me, the oil companies have us by the throat and there's not much we can do. So what happens if they start doing as you've suggested...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.



And i agree. Oil should not be considered a commodity. Without it, we are nothing as a country.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


I'm not comfortable having the government control ANYTHING. What have they controlled and done well with? Or at least better than an entrepreneur would do? I can't think of one thing. It is NOT governments place to start running businesses.

Do I want gas prices down? Yes. But going about it this way is a one way road to communism/socialism.....well, you get what I mean. They need to get out of the way and stop trying to tax these companies.

Regulations are fine and dandy but running the show is obviously a bit much.

Not a good idea.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
jsobecky, whatteory;

The reference to the third ammendment was my bad. It's immaterial anyway.

The most important caveat I want to point out is that THIS government is corporate. It is not a true representative of the government which is supposed to exists. In fact, what we have is a masquerade, a Hollywood construct, a make-believe government, run by and for corporations and international business.

My comments about nationalization are theoretical in that they presume the government will be or can be restored to its constitutionally intended form and function.

jsobecky:


Gov't does not belong in the business of owning any commerce.


And I agree. Nationalization does not mean commerce. In fact, almost everything that people claim is wrong with this government is BECAUSE of business and the influence of business within the public service sector. Military for the common defense isn't a business, but the government runs that, National Parks isn't a business but they run that too. In fact, the run a lot of things that businesses could easily lay claim to. Just because its nationalized doesn't mean it will be a business, BUT because it's nationalized you can't easily HIDE shady business practices and abuse or wanton profiteering at the expense of the national economic landscape.

jsobecky:


Either you believe in capitalism and free markets, or you don't.


I cannot accept such absolutes. I hold that compromise is amongst the most important aspects of the American character. There MUST be a middle ground. If there isn't, than corporate domination is an inevitability by virtue of their eventual total control over all wealth. Capitalism and free market either can accommodate the welfare of the entire population or it is farcical charade leading to the eventual serfdom for all consumer-based societies.

I am not advocating socialism any more than you are advocating fascism. There is no 'all or nothing' in the world. That kind of thinking is for 'manifest destiny' advocates and imperialists. How can it come to pass that the resources of a land claimed by a people are 'outside' their ability to control? Who declared that America is now a servant of big oil? Will the free market suffer the loss of the ability to exploit oil, NO, big oil will. Is big oil THE free market? NO. they are a component of the energy combine that has been siphoning the wealth out of this country. Their investments were repaid long ago.

jsobecky:


Since when is the oil underneath the Saudi Arabian desert "our national wealth"?


Simple misunderstanding. I am referring to the natural resources within our national boundaries, the rest they can do with as they will.

whattheory:


Anytime government gets involved with the free market, there is always a threat.


A threat to whom? To what? Big Oil? I think they've prepared for such a threat. They have conglomerated their corporate structure with like-minded industries whose economic footprint rivals that of nations. They are a threat to our national security and they have no intention of lessening their accumulation of wealth regardless of the impact it has on the 'non-corporate' American. Do you think if they are unable to access the oil that they will punish us? You are correct, they will. That, in and of itself tells me they are no longer an ally of this country.

whattheory:


I guess not because you must be living under a rock. Please explain how the free market has gotton us into our current situation.
The free market is what has made the U.S. a superpower and which has given us such a great standard of living.


Nice. I said corporate sector, not free market. And if you can't see how the corporate sector has gotten us into this mess, than I'm afraid I am disinclined to try and explain it. Besides you were needlessly rude.

Unfortunately I am out of time (for a few hours) so - flame away...,



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


between the oil companies gouging us to make their executives wealthy and opec trying to bring the west to its knees and the world bank behind the scenes involvement to make a buck-------its about time the government stepped in and fetched all 3 of those organizations up before they cause a worldwide depression----and possibly a world war fighting over resources.

my wife and i have quit driving our 2 cars as of 6 months ago----don't even know if they would start now.
the other problem is to heat your home and cook food or buy food----the prices have doubled on some items---due to the fuel costs the truck drivers have to tack on to get food to the stores-----and the farmers have to sell at a higher price because their fuel costs and fertilizer costs have also risen in stride.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


It's very naive to imagine that the government could do a good job managing our oil infrastructure. That kind of command and control socialism always leads to shortages. Oil production is down in Venezuela because of this. Socialism created lines for toilet paper in Russia. Yet somehow every generation people seem to think that this time we'll do it right. This time all the government players will be altruistic, efficient and sensitive to the realities of the marketplace.

All it does is replace one big monopoly with an even bigger one. No thanks.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Our government couldn't manage it's way out of a plastic bag. Socialism is not the answer, but neither is the rampant profiteering and collusion of greedy power whores. It matters little whether we adopt a certain policy or not. As long as the political landscape exists as it does now, reason has no foothold in these affairs.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
The speculators appear to have the Democrats in their hip pockets. What else is new.

Republicans control the oil. Democrats control the Commodities Market. Together they control the voters who are to dumb to understand simple economics.

Get ready for long lines at the pumps if the Pelozi groupies take over the refineries. Of course they will need to raise the tax on oil, just for the hell of it. Nancy needs a bigger plane after all. I hear that she and Obama are going on world tour shortly. Get your tickets while they last. Don't forget your autograph book and expect a surprise performance by Comrade Gore.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Nationalize?
You mean as in seizing the assets of the big oil companies?
You mean like Hugo Chavez did?
...like Saddam Hussein did?

Oh that's right, it's the Democrat Party trying to take political control of energy but they may be biting off more than they can chew.
Somebody better tell the Lefties they shouldn't play with with the big boys cuz the big boys really know how to play.

Don't be surprised if big oil companies start moving their headquarters out of the country.
... what happens then?



new topics




 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join