California panel rejects new offshore oil drilling

Jan 29, 2009 Full story: www.iht.com 645

A state panel rejected a proposal Thursday that could have led to the first new oil drilling project off the California coast in 40 years.

Full Story

“If you believe it, stand by it”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#680 Mar 30, 2009
Mad Dog USN wrote:
GM & Chrysler won't fold
They are becoming Obama motors.
I was just watching the news and appearently
Obama ensured GM & Chryler's warranties..
Can wait to see what next generation of GM Chryslers vehicles will look like and how much they will cost..
Down payment starts with a 1 year tour of duty with ACORN...
Can't wait to see the new "Obamobile." Do you have any ideas what it will look like?

“If you believe it, stand by it”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#681 Mar 30, 2009
I listened to Obama's decree this morning. I heard him say a whole lot about what General Motors and Chrysler were doing wrong, but I did not hear a word about Ford and what they were doing right. Just like a good salesman, he did not mention his competition. Although, he would probably negative things to say if asked.

“oderint dum metuant”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#682 Mar 30, 2009
seedtick wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't wait to see the new "Obamobile." Do you have any ideas what it will look like?
Good catch!!! I was gonna say Obamamobile...LOL

Actually based on current trends the Obamamobile
is said to be transparent, so transparent in fact nobody knows how it works. You just assume it works..

It's eco friendly because you can't find the gas cap, and it may take up to a year to start after turning over the ignition.

They give you an owners manual but your not allowed to read it.

All Obamamobile payment are financed through
Dudd & Fwank financial.

Please feel free to add to this list

“If you believe it, stand by it”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#683 Mar 30, 2009
Mad Dog USN wrote:
<quoted text>
Good catch!!! I was gonna say Obamamobile...LOL
Actually based on current trends the Obamamobile
is said to be transparent, so transparent in fact nobody knows how it works. You just assume it works..
It's eco friendly because you can't find the gas cap, and it may take up to a year to start after turning over the ignition.
They give you an owners manual but your not allowed to read it.
All Obamamobile payment are financed through
Dudd & Fwank financial.
Please feel free to add to this list
I hear that the Cyclops model will only have one headlight to save power.
For long trips you will have a tank on a trailer to capture exhaust fumes when you have to use the engine while driving at night. They are waiting on legislation that will force someone to furnish recycle stations for the captured fumes...although there is one suggestion....inflate tires with it.
If we keep on we will solve world hunger.

“oderint dum metuant”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#684 Mar 30, 2009
seedtick wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear that the Cyclops model will only have one headlight to save power.
For long trips you will have a tank on a trailer to capture exhaust fumes when you have to use the engine while driving at night. They are waiting on legislation that will force someone to furnish recycle stations for the captured fumes...although there is one suggestion....inflate tires with it.
If we keep on we will solve world hunger.
Bravo to you sir!!! good ones

“oderint dum metuant”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#685 Mar 30, 2009
seedtick wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear that the Cyclops model will only have one headlight to save power.
For long trips you will have a tank on a trailer to capture exhaust fumes when you have to use the engine while driving at night. They are waiting on legislation that will force someone to furnish recycle stations for the captured fumes...although there is one suggestion....inflate tires with it.
If we keep on we will solve world hunger.
The they can charge us with cap and trade....LOL

“If you believe it, stand by it”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#686 Mar 30, 2009
Mad Dog USN wrote:
<quoted text>
The they can charge us with cap and trade....LOL
Who said that a sailor and a marine couldn't get along? Anchors aweigh and Semper Fi.

“oderint dum metuant”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#687 Mar 30, 2009
seedtick wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said that a sailor and a marine couldn't get along? Anchors aweigh and Semper Fi.
Fair winds and following seas

“If you believe it, stand by it”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#688 Mar 30, 2009
Mad Dog USN wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair winds and following seas
Amen, brother.
Skeptic

Pleasanton, TX

#689 Mar 31, 2009
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Letting GM and Chrysler fold will just pass along cronic unemployment to our descendants.
America needs a manufacturing base in this country to maintain our standard of living and the car companies are a necessary part of that base.
Mac,

I question that GM and Chrysler are necessary to maintain a “manufacturing base” and even, though to a lesser extent, whether a manufacturing base is absolutely necessary to our economy.

The Asian automobile companies, for example, hire workers for their assembly plants. They merely hire them at lower wages than the “monsters of Detroit” and don’t carry the burdens of years of under-funded pensions and high fringe benefits. The same parts suppliers can supply the parts for either domestic or foreign products and the “aftermarket” is actually a better source of profits than OEM.

Most of our steel companies have already “folded” yet we have survived. Those companies and railroads (also largely defunct) once were among the top providers of employment in the U. S.

Though manufacturing has provided many (most?) of the employment opportunities in the recent past (passing agriculture many years ago), we are moving to a sales and information rather than manufacturing base. I don’t have statistics on employment by class but would guess that manufacturing already accounts for fewer employees than sales. Certainly union membership as a percentage of those employed has been declining for at least a decade.

I tend to be against subsidization of companies in one industry.
SNJ

Oslo, Norway

#690 Mar 31, 2009
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
SNJ,
And I suspect have precisely as great an impact on politics in Norway as on this thread—absolutely NONE.
These days yes...Hasn't been like that qlways. I have served my time in local politics. Elected to the county "board" when I was young and beautiful.
Or at least young..
SNJ

Oslo, Norway

#691 Mar 31, 2009
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Mac,
I question that GM and Chrysler are necessary to maintain a “manufacturing base” and even, though to a lesser extent, whether a manufacturing base is absolutely necessary to our economy.
The Asian automobile companies, for example, hire workers for their assembly plants. They merely hire them at lower wages than the “monsters of Detroit” and don’t carry the burdens of years of under-funded pensions and high fringe benefits. The same parts suppliers can supply the parts for either domestic or foreign products and the “aftermarket” is actually a better source of profits than OEM.
Most of our steel companies have already “folded” yet we have survived. Those companies and railroads (also largely defunct) once were among the top providers of employment in the U. S.
Though manufacturing has provided many (most?) of the employment opportunities in the recent past (passing agriculture many years ago), we are moving to a sales and information rather than manufacturing base. I don’t have statistics on employment by class but would guess that manufacturing already accounts for fewer employees than sales. Certainly union membership as a percentage of those employed has been declining for at least a decade.
I tend to be against subsidization of companies in one industry.
Are you for or against "Union busters"??
And...:
Can you imagine an America completely dependent on other countries for all manufactured goods - cars,steel products, ships, construction....
You need to have a "know-how" base for skilled workers too. You cannot make a living out of cutting each others hair only...I think what Obama aims at in Detroit is very interesting.
Let's see if a success will be the end-product or not.
Skeptic

Bigfoot, TX

#692 Mar 31, 2009
SNJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for or against "Union busters"??
And...:
Can you imagine an America completely dependent on other countries for all manufactured goods - cars,steel products, ships, construction....
You need to have a "know-how" base for skilled workers too. You cannot make a living out of cutting each others hair only...I think what Obama aims at in Detroit is very interesting.
Let's see if a success will be the end-product or not.
SNJ,

I’m neither for nor against unions. At one time I was a member of five locals in three different unions, UAW (three locals, two GM one at a company then called Aeroquip), URW (Goodyear) and American Federation of Musicians. However some do need to lose some of the power they exercise. If you call that “Union Busting” I’m for it but if you refer to the tactics of Bennett at Ford I’m equally strongly against it.

The union “busted” at least one reasonably good-sized company—International Harvester. At least part of their truck manufacturing has been restored as Navistar and some of their manufacture of agricultural implements was sold to others but some of their work was plain lost. Unions did little to help Republic, Bethlehem and other steel companies survive either.

There are loads of “skilled jobs” other than those in manufacturing. In fact most of the jobs I held or observed in manufacturing required very little skill.

Nor do I foresee the complete disappearance of jobs in manufacturing in the U. S. just as there are still workers (skilled and unskilled) in agriculture.

I believe construction workers (again skilled and unskilled) are classified separately from those in manufacturing.

I don’t believe that survival of GM and Chrysler are critical to our economy. I doubt that any subsidy can make them competitive...just throwing good money after bad. Remember Chrysler only recently became a U. S. company once again. Mercedes took a bath!

I certainly don’t want more legal restraints on foreign competition. You complain bitterly about a very minor restriction, the Jones Act. Can you support more?

Obama is, first of all, a politician. He seeks votes above all else!
Skeptic

Bigfoot, TX

#693 Mar 31, 2009
SNJ wrote:
<quoted text>
These days yes...Hasn't been like that qlways. I have served my time in local politics. Elected to the county "board" when I was young and beautiful.
Or at least young..
SNJ,

One of my closest friends was a County Supervisor for quite a few years. He had absolutely no impact on national politics.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

#694 Apr 2, 2009
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Mac,
I question that GM and Chrysler are necessary to maintain a “manufacturing base” and even, though to a lesser extent, whether a manufacturing base is absolutely necessary to our economy.
I think that as American manufacturing has gone overseas the income of average Americans has declined.

We cannot be a nation of consumers without making something too.

China has adopted most of our unwanted factories and now we owe them trillions of dollars in debt.

I think that fact alone proves we need a manufacturing base.

And not just factories owned and operated by the Japanese or the Germans.

“oderint dum metuant”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#695 Apr 2, 2009
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that as American manufacturing has gone overseas the income of average Americans has declined.
We cannot be a nation of consumers without making something too.
China has adopted most of our unwanted factories and now we owe them trillions of dollars in debt.
I think that fact alone proves we need a manufacturing base.
And not just factories owned and operated by the Japanese or the Germans.
Would you say that we as a nation have become or are becoming a nation of consumers?

Are we on our way to producing and manufacturing
nothing in exchange for cheaper overseas goods??

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

#696 Apr 2, 2009
Mad Dog USN wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you say that we as a nation have become or are becoming a nation of consumers?

Are we on our way to producing and manufacturing
nothing in exchange for cheaper overseas goods??
Yes to both questions.

We have a cronic deficit with our trading partners that is being covered by increasing national debt.
Skeptic

Bigfoot, TX

#697 Apr 2, 2009
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that as American manufacturing has gone overseas the income of average Americans has declined.
We cannot be a nation of consumers without making something too.
China has adopted most of our unwanted factories and now we owe them trillions of dollars in debt.
I think that fact alone proves we need a manufacturing base.
And not just factories owned and operated by the Japanese or the Germans.
Mac,

According to the Department of the Treasury China held $739.6 billion (NOT trillions) in U. S. Securities as of the end of January 2009 out of a total of about $11,000 billion or under 7%. However that IS growing and much too rapidly! China has now passed Japan.

I certainly agree with you that we cannot go on increasing our debts! That problem isn’t limited to the Federal Government but extends to the states, local governments, quasi-governmental agencies such as toll road authorities and school boards, private companies and, most of all, to we the people!

We own facilities outside the U. S. as well. ExxonMobil, for example, made 75% of that $40 billion OUTSIDE the U. S. in 2007! But the balance HAS shifted in favor of foreign companies. There was a time when the Buick Opel outsold the VW—in Germany!

Foreign ownership of U. S. facilities is quite widely distributed but China remains a relatively minor factor. They thrive on selling us products of their cheap labor.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Richardson, TX

#698 Apr 2, 2009
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Mac,
According to the Department of the Treasury China held $739.6 billion (NOT trillions) in U. S. Securities as of the end of January 2009 out of a total of about $11,000 billion or under 7%. However that IS growing and much too rapidly! China has now passed Japan.
I certainly agree with you that we cannot go on increasing our debts! That problem isn’t limited to the Federal Government but extends to the states, local governments, quasi-governmental agencies such as toll road authorities and school boards, private companies and, most of all, to we the people!
We own facilities outside the U. S. as well. ExxonMobil, for example, made 75% of that $40 billion OUTSIDE the U. S. in 2007! But the balance HAS shifted in favor of foreign companies. There was a time when the Buick Opel outsold the VW—in Germany!
Foreign ownership of U. S. facilities is quite widely distributed but China remains a relatively minor factor. They thrive on selling us products of their cheap labor.
My source agrees with the amount of public debt held by China but puts the percentage at 24%.

Japan is second with 20%.

Other trading partners include Taiwan and Korea.

If we had not given away or driven away or manufacturing base the US would not have to borrow any money from foreign countries.
Skeptic

Pleasanton, TX

#699 Apr 3, 2009
Mac-7 wrote:
<quoted text>
My source agrees with the amount of public debt held by China but puts the percentage at 24%.
Japan is second with 20%.
Other trading partners include Taiwan and Korea.
If we had not given away or driven away or manufacturing base the US would not have to borrow any money from foreign countries.
Mac,

I believe those are the percentages China and Japan have of the FOREIGN holdings rather than of the total debt. The total held by ALL foreign countries was $3072.2 billion but the total federal debt is slightly above $11,000 billion (and that fails to count the money “borrowed” from those now paying into Social Security and Medicare).

Little Luxembourg is above both Taiwan and Korea.

Add taxed away to “given or driven.” We’ve borrowed from some foreign countries for several decades but NEVER on the recent scale!

Do you believe ANY amount of money government can provide would make GM or Chrysler competitive with the Asian auto manufacturers?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
US oil company donated millions to climate scep... (Mar '10) 14 hr AntiTypical 71
ABG Sundal Collier Norge handles Glen Rose Petr... (Jun '12) 19 hr Also Owed Money 19
Halliburton pleads guilty to destroying Gulf sp... (Jul '13) Oct 29 swedenforever 25
In Federal Court Filing, PG&E and Nuclear Regul... Oct 29 BDV 1
Despite California climate law, carbon emission... Oct 26 IBdaMann 4
Two accused of burglary, trespassing in Union P... Oct 25 Brentsbuddy 6
Exclusive: Paulson Still Backs Whiting-Kodiak D... Oct 15 lanie_marikina 2

Energy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE