Re: Baron Scarpia | 7:38 a.m. Sept. 8, 2011 "if we ever tap it, would
take at least 10 years to see a drop of oil"Translation: We
should have started developing these energy sources 30 years ago. If we had
done it then we wouldn't be paying $500 billion a year today to buy foreign
oil.Meantime Obama is stuck with a 9.1% unemployment rate.
Before you get all excited about tar sands, oil shale, and ANWR -- the prospects
for these are years out. Tar sands and oil shale are not even economically
feasible yet, and ANWR, if we ever tap it, would take at least 10 years to see a
drop of oil. Tar sands and oil shale will take water from agriculture, so we're
bound to see job losses in that sector if the economics ever pencil out.And deep water drilling in the Gulf? Ask the fishing and tourism
industries if they've fully recovered from the 2010 oil spill. People still
don't want to eat seafood from the Gulf, killing thousands of jobs and the
livelihoods along the Gulf coast.Before you "blame"
liberals for anything, make sure you understand the time, economics, and the
job prospects that will come from "drill, baby, drill" proposals being
tossed around as if they're truly viable opportunities for immediate jobs. They
make good GOP sound bites, but not immediate job reality.
Re: Pagan | 3:11 p.m. Sept. 7, 2011 "You claim that the oil industry
'could' boost employment..."It wouldn't increase employment to
develop our vast reserves of oil here in America? The liberal Democrats are a
classic example of the blind leading the blind. No wonder Obama has pushed our
unemployment rate up to 9.1%. "All who realize how disastrous
Obamas economic policies have been and what a terrible effect they are having on
our economy expected Augusts net job-creation numbers to be low. Few thought
they would be nil." - Dick Morris
America spends almost $500 billion a year purchasing foreign oil. If that money
was spent here instead on ANWR, oil sands, oil shale, more drilling in the Gulf
of Mexico, etc., it would create thousands of direct jobs and thousands of
indirect jobs through all sectors of the US economy.
'The Republicans have been saying that for years...' - Rifleman | 2:40 p.m.
Sept. 7, 2011, Yes. And how has that gone, so far? You claim that the oil industry 'could' boost employment... and
then use your OWN bad employment numbers. I realize you might not
even see the contradiction. Regardless, ZERO job growth...is better
than LOOSING 1.9 million jobs in 2008. Source? The Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Zero, is better than NEGATIVE 1.9 million.
But I also understand you will not even acknowledge this.
Re: Pagan | 2:20 p.m. Sept. 7, 2011 Yes, the oil industry could
boost employment. The Republicans have been saying that for years but the
Democrats want us to remain dependent upon foreign oilMeantime last
Friday the Labor Department said August was the first time since 1945 that the
government has reported a net monthly job change of zero. Perhaps msnbc.com
news services got it all wrong. Kinda like sticking a cow with a cattle prod.
'"We believe that could be a very important part of the president's plan in
his focus on job creation and working with the Republican and Democratic
leadership in Congress," Gerard said. He said the group's proposals
represent "common ground" that should find support in both parties.' -
Article That would be new. Republican speaker: *John Boehner: If GOP Cuts Cause Federal Job Losses, 'So Be It' - Huffington
Post - 02/15/11 *Republicans block small business lending bill' - By
Stephen Ohlemacher - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/29/10 'The bill
would create a $30 billion government fund to help community banks increase
lending to small businesses...' *'Hatch, Republicans challenge tax
cut expiration' - By Becky Bruce, Deseret News - 12/01/10
'WASHINGTON, D.C. Republicans in the U.S. Senate are drawing a line in the
virtual sand, vowing to keep all legislation off the Senate floor unless
Congress extends the Bush-era tax cuts...' Vowing to keep all
legislation, off the Senate...floor.