FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn't drop gas price

[faethor]

@Fade,
Nader and Perot both got ZERO electorial votes. At most a spoiler not a competitor. (To tee off Red - see Ron Paul.)

 

[Fade]

Anytime there is a strong 3rd party popular vote, it costs someone else electoral votes.
In 1968, Democrat George Wallace got about 14% of the popular vote on a 3rd party bid, and won 46 electoral votes. It wouldn't have changed the election, but it caused a runaway for Nixon.

In 1992 Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote.
Republicans claimed they would have had more than enough electoral votes across the US to win if Perot hadn't run.
Bill Clinton won. 1st time in modern history, a president won with less than 50% of the popular vote.

The 2000 contest hinged on Florida.

Bush 2,912,790 Republican
Gore 2,912,253 Democrat
Nader 97488 Green

Dems claim 3rd party Green voters cost Gore the election. If only Nader hadn't run, bla, bla, bla!
G. W. Bush got all Florida electoral votes and won the election.

So yeah, 3rd, 4th, and 5th party voters can change elections, they just can't win.
That's not the point with those parties. Those running always want something else.

 

[faethor]

Anytime there is a strong 3rd party popular vote, it costs someone else electoral votes.

So Nader and Perot were not 'strong' popular votes?

The 2000 contest hinged on Florida.

Bush 2,912,790 Republican
Gore 2,912,253 Democrat
Nader 97488 Green

Dems claim 3rd party Green voters cost Gore the election. If only Nader hadn't run, bla, bla, bla!
G. W. Bush got all Florida electoral votes and won the election.

People always like to blame someone else for their loss. Gore's outcome was because of Gore.
It's Gore's fault that Florida was so close.

That being said the loss in Florida was due to the Federal Courts failing to respect States Rights. The judges wrongly decided the election. Votes are a States issue and they should have pushed a recount back to the State and let the State decide. Investigations of votes in Florida uncovered counting of illegal votes and a failure to count legal votes. Unofficially with counting more in alignment to law gives Gore a 23K votes ahead of Bush.

Importantly we need some viable 3rd parties. Elections in the US are really pick A or B.

 

[metalman]

The issues that he raises are not those that are allowed to be raised by a president - because when a "lone nut" is saying them you can tell people he's a nut and not to listen. These days I come across more and more people who used to not listen to him because he was a nut and now have listened to him and found that he isn't a nut.

 

[Fade]

Faethor, I'll just quote you.

"The judges wrongly decided the election."
and
"People always like to blame someone else for their loss."
------------------------

Out of the mouths of babes!





Quote
"Importantly we need some viable 3rd parties."
------------------------

No we don't.
Everyone saw what the Democrats did to the Tea Party.
The Republicans would probably do the same thing to any offshoot from the Democrats.

We need better candidates in both the Democrat and the Republican parties.
Especially in the Senate. With better rules on elections; two term limit, and if you run for the Senate, you can't run, if you are a current House member. House limit of 4 terms (8years)
No more than 12 years in total for House and Senate combined.
With a final kicker of 6 years after leaving any office, whether elected or appointed, before you can lobby congress.

Of course none of those things will ever take place, because the House and Senate are the ones that set the rules. If any member tried to put that on the agenda, they would be drummed out of their own party.

 

[faethor]

Faethor, I'll just quote you.
"The judges wrongly decided the election."
and
"People always like to blame someone else for their loss."
------------------------
Out of the mouths of babes!

There are definitely two issues here. Had Gore done better himself the issue wouldn't have gone to the Judges in the first place, so he's definitely to blame. The Federal Judges denying a recount is at fault because they failed to uphold the State Rights in an election.

"Importantly we need some viable 3rd parties."
------------------------
No we don't.
We need better candidates in both the Democrat and the Republican parties.

I don't disagree we need better Democratic and Republican candidates. However, I would like to see better 3rd party. It appears the Democratics are the 'tax and spend' party economically and a lower intrusions into individual lives. It appears the Republicans are the 'borrow and spend' party economically and higher intrusions into individual lives. It'd be nice to have a 'pay as you go' party that would lower intrusions into individual lifes while still having a good support of the 2nd Ammendment. And the Republicans would certainly be more attractive to me if the Christian Taliban would break into their own party.

The issue is there are many items to debate and they often aren't binary decisions. Having two parties often results in diversity to the extent the people are not fairly represented or similarity that the people are not fairly represented.

As for term limits we have them. We vote for candidates in the caucaus and for elected officials. If the people believe there's a better choice they are voted in. Having more viable parties would also facilitate here.

 

[cecilia]

People always like to blame someone else for their loss. Gore's outcome was because of Gore.
It's Gore's fault that Florida was so close.

I don't think Gore personally complained but other certainly did.

and he would have gotten a better lead if

1. he picked a good VP. liberman is an asshole
2. he got rid of his cunt wife

 

[robert l. bentham]

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The problem with the US is that the big crooks never go to jail.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

and again

 

[Dammy]

The US consumes 20% of the world's supply of oil. We're sitting on about 2-4% of the world's supply of oil. Guys do the math here. It's impossible to feed ourselves oil indefinitely. As long as we use oil we'll need an external resource to gain that oil.

Except that 2-4% is proven oil reserve which is a financial term and not a geological term. Proven Oil Reserve means oil they know is there and LEGALLY ABLE TO DRILL FOR. Our real oil in the ground is far higher then that and gets down right slap happy when you add in Canada's oil.

Now if oil supply doesn't mean anything to the gas pump prices, does that mean if Obama issued a stop all oil drilling and oil production Executive Order this afternoon, it's not going to effect the gas pump prices? Supply and demand rules are fully apply in both directions.

 

[Dammy]

@ Fluffy. Explain to me what caused the oil pricing to drop in 07-08 if it's not supply and demand?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

@ Fluffy. Explain to me what caused the oil pricing to drop in 07-08 if it's not supply and demand?

You are positing a false dilemma, similar to false dilemmas like "the sunspot cycle influences global temperature therefore CO2 doesn't" or "if man evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys".

 

[Robert]

"if man evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys".

Well?

I s'pose you c'n 'splain that wi' your fancy-pants science, college-boy?

 

[faethor]

Except that 2-4% is proven oil reserve which is a financial term and not a geological term. Proven Oil Reserve means oil they know is there and LEGALLY ABLE TO DRILL FOR.

Err kinda. It also means profitable to drill for.

Our real oil in the ground is far higher then that and gets down right slap happy when you add in Canada's oil.

I don't know if sticking our straw across the boarder is a great idea. Afterall Canada was the only Country to burn the White House down.

The real oil in the ground may be far higher. Though more costly to extract. Which means we either need to find lower cost methods OR charge you more at the pump.

Now if oil supply doesn't mean anything to the gas pump prices, does that mean if Obama issued a stop all oil drilling and oil production Executive Order this afternoon, it's not going to effect the gas pump prices? Supply and demand rules are fully apply in both directions.

Sorry but your thought here is incorrect. Stopping all production doesn't prove supply and demand is the only rule. It does prove it's a large majority of the rule. The rules of gambling also apply and influence oil. People, mostly companies, bet that, for example, an improving economy will need to demand more oil. So when an improving economy is predicted people bet the price of oil will go up and it influences oil prices, which indeed go up. Just as oil companies saying their production is going to fall short of the world supply artifically raises oil prices early. It's not that we're really short, people are betting we will be short.

And of course the US Government gives huge amounts of money to the mature oil industry. This is part of the reason the US pays a lower price per litre than the rest of the world.

 

[Fade]

And of course the US Government gives huge amounts of money to the mature oil industry. This is part of the reason the US pays a lower price per litre than the rest of the world.
------------------------------------

Wrong!
The reason the US consumer pays less for gas than the rest of the world is the US government does not charge two arms and a leg in taxes on a gallon of gas. Example; Euro zone.

When you can correctly answer these questions, you will be graded on your answers.

What is considered a subsidy?

Should subsides be eliminated?

Why does the US government give a subsidy to any energy producer?

Who gets the highest energy subsidy in the US?

Who gets the highest percentage of subsidy compared to the amount of energy they produce?

What the heck is a litre?

 

[faethor]

Wrong!
The reason the US consumer pays less for gas than the rest of the world is the US government does not charge two arms and a leg in taxes on a gallon of gas. Example; Euro zone.

Due to incomplete accounting we do not realize all the costs as gasoline.

When you can correctly answer these questions, you will be graded on your answers.

What is considered a subsidy?

Subsidy here was used as both indirect costs being covered by the government, along with the direct monies contributed by a Government. In the case of Fossil Fuel there is a variety of subsidies at play. Indirectly the US supports this product through military action, paying costs to manufacture highways, contributing to building and maintainin the distribution system and covering costs of environmental and health impacts. Directly the Fossil Fuel industry sees ~$12Billion per year in direct contributions and Tax Breaks.

Should subsides be eliminated?

If one believes in a true capitalist system where the business covers all cost of business directly then yes.

Why does the US government give a subsidy to any energy producer?

Energy is a product that influences the cost for everything in society. The US has been subsidizing fossil fuels for at least a century. If subsidies have a negative impact on innovation it's what the US has exactly done for the last 100 years.

So how we equalize the marketplace? If the idea is an equal footing for everyone shouldn't we fund other energies just as we have fossil fuels for the ~$450Billion (adjusted for inflation) over the last century?

Who gets the highest energy subsidy in the US?

2002-2008 Fossil Fuel received $72Billion in subsidies. Making it the industry with the largest amount. Farmer's were next. Renewables in the same period were $29 Billion.

How about if we look at subsidies per industry per year since we started subsidizing? Fossil fuel averages $4.8Billion per year. Nuclear averages $3.1 Billion per year. Renewables at $0.37Billion per year.

Who gets the highest percentage of subsidy compared to the amount of energy they produce?

If we only consider direct subsidies it's likely to be renewables. I think if we include the indirect subsidies of health, environment, and military then we have something interesting. Turns out that not only USA but worldwide renewables are beginning to chomp at the heels of fossil fuels. Germany, for example, is seeing new development of renewables to be as good if not a better option than fossil fuels.

What the heck is a litre?

A litre is a unit of volume defined by a cube with 10centimeter sides.

 

[Fade]

Overall not a bad score, but I would argue a few points.
Your dollar amounts are way off, based on 2006 figures.
Ethanol takes top billing in dollar spending and highest subsidized percentage (26.5%) based on production.
Oil is second in dollars but at 0.5% is next to last in the percentage bracket.
Coal is third in dollars and third from the bottom in percentage.(6.5%)
Nuclear is fourth in dollars but second in percentage.(20.9%)
Throw out Hydroelectric because most of it is government owned anyway.
The others (renewables) don't pull their own weight and would collapse without govt. help.
Solar (12.3%) This percentage will probably quadruple after the loans Obama made them.
Wind (11.6%)
Bio diesel (9.9%)
Geothermal (0.5%)
Biomass (0.4%)

The biggest chunk of subsidies for oil & gas and coal is made up from the difference between the going market rate for a loan, and what the govt. charges them for a loan. If the market rate is 7%, and the govt. offers 3%, that is a subsidy.
The chink in that argument is, the govt. is offering those rates only if they drill or dig on government owned or controlled property. In other words, the govt. is encouraging them to buy drilling rights on govt. property because of the money they collect before drilling even starts, whether it produces or not.

What the heck is the government going to do for that money, if the oil companies decide it is cheaper to go outside the 200 mile govt. controlled zone. The government can't make them drill on government land, so if the govt. increases the costs of drilling, it will finally reach a point where it is more profitable to drill offshore and sell openly to the world market.

Oil companies are not in the business of drilling for oil. They are in the business of making a profit, just like every other company in the world.

Somehow everyone wants to forget that Big Oil is a multinational enterprise that every Tom, Dick , and Harry the world over has some investment in. It doesn't matter whether you have a 401K retirement plan, direct purchase of stock market shares or a teacher or union retirement fund. It doesn't matter what country you live in, or even whether you know it or not, it makes no difference, somehow you are invested. Investors, big or small, demand a profit or they pull their money out and put it somewhere else. The oil companies know this, and will drill where the profits are located.

One last thing I will add. Profits are what is left over after paying all costs and taxes. Those two things are always passed along to the consumer, no matter what! You can tax that company to the point, where the consumer can no longer pay that tax.

On that litre thing. I speak American engrish, so to me it is liter.

 

[faethor]

Overall not a bad score, but I would argue a few points.
Your dollar amounts are way off, based on 2006 figures.

Feel free to correct for inflation and put in the additional expendatures. However, that doesn't change the Fossil Fuels, which we've been using for a century and is a mature market, is easing subsidies.

The biggest chunk of subsidies for oil & gas and coal is made up from the difference between the going market rate for a loan, and what the govt. charges them for a loan. If the market rate is 7%, and the govt. offers 3%, that is a subsidy.

How does Exxon's loan credit compare to Exxons $0 Federal Tax bill on $45 Billion in profits, not sales profits? The Valdez was a tax write off so it cost Exxon pennies and yet citizens in Alaska are still dealing with the environmnetal impacts.

The government can't make them drill on government land, so if the govt. increases the costs of drilling, it will finally reach a point where it is more profitable to drill offshore and sell openly to the world market.

Selling oil internationally is happening today. Oil refineries are near full production and we produce more oil than we use. This is how the US ends up being an oil importer, we need for our needs, and still is capable of exporting, because we ship out the refined product.

Oil companies are not in the business of drilling for oil. They are in the business of making a profit, just like every other company in the world.

Great reminder capitalizim is out to make a buck. Which means however they can do it is how they will do it. That's why we need to regulate markets. Can you say Enron?

Somehow everyone wants to forget that Big Oil is a multinational enterprise that every Tom, Dick , and Harry the world over has some investment in.

Too big to fail! We know the story well. And oil makes the largest profits in the history of the world.

One last thing I will add. Profits are what is left over after paying all costs and taxes. Those two things are always passed along to the consumer, no matter what! You can tax that company to the point, where the consumer can no longer pay that tax.

Lots of 'you coulds' but we're not. Nor do we look to be doing that anytime soon. Taxing a bit isn't a fear I have. Companies should pay their fair share of entry fee into the marketplace.

 

[faethor]

@FADE,

Here's an interesting case. It appears the Gulf animals have indeed been impacted by BP.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241682318260912.html

The problem is first definitively establishing cause. Who pays that cost? Then if it's able to be established what does/can BP pay? And if BP doesn't then it's up to the US Citizens, Mexican Citizens, US Shrimp farmers etc. to eat those costs. What we saw happen with BP is a limited cost approach to not damage BP. That means your tax dollar is going to oil costs which protect private industry profits. When in truth they don't deserve the profits when they haven't eaten the costs.