First off there is the Obama bashing that seems to be a recurring theme recently. The depressing thing is that the accusations of flip-flopping seem to be accurate and are very disturbing. Secondly, and even worse, was the airing of speech clips from the past eight presidents, all of whom promised energy programs to “free us from dependence on foreign oil”. None of them has succeeded in ever making the slightest dent, perhaps because Congress is and has always been firmly in the pockets of the oil industry. It’s all just a sham, and it’s damned depressing.
If it makes you feel any better, that isn’t why the US keeps buying foreign oil.
The USA keeps buying foreign oil because it’s a really useful and cheap product. There is simply no other reason; it has nothing to do with being in the pockets of the oil industry. (The Republican opposition to BP paying for cleanup costs, well, now, THAT’S being in the pocket of the oil industry.)
The USA, and almost every country in the Western world - it’s not like Japan is growing its own oil - buys oil because it’s really useful stuff and the price is right. You will not find a better, more economical combustible fuel. It would be remarkably stupid to NOT buy it. You could replace it with other forms of energy but you’d be poorer, because the replacement would cost more money than the oil does.
That doesn’t change the fact 8 Presidents have said X and have not done X, but in truth, it’s not that Congress is bought off so much as it is that you cannot change economics to match your campaign speech.
Oil, shmoil. It’s the unending duplicity of our politicians that’s depressing. Americans are played for fools year after year after year, and while I’ve known this is so for the past 30-40 years or so, it’s depressing to see it displayed so graphically.
The funny-sad thing is that, since Presidents are obviously not necessarily hurt by making this declaration, seeing as the public can’t really learn from history, each successive President can make the exact same declaration. And when it finally happens, that President will be hailed as a freaking hero.
Sort of like when I sit at a red light going, “Green…now! Green…now! …Now! Ha, it turned green! I’m awesome.”
I thought that BP has always said that it is liable for cleanup costs and has never suggested it won’t pay them. Is this incorrect? Did the R’s actually say they didn’t want BP to have to pay what BP has always said it would pay?
It’s not just that the politicians are duplicitous, although they often have been. It’s also that they and the public have so often been totally shortsighted. I think that’s partly what the Wednesday night montage showed. The presidents keep setting goals and talking about alternatives, but there has never been much urgency to develop alternative fuels despite wars and oil crises, and long-term energy development has clashed with the exigencies of electoral politics. You might notice that the clip of Clinton talking about alternative energy was from 2000, near the end of his term. That’s not to shift the blame or anything because it’s a depressing problem. And it’s one of the most damning montages TDS has done.
Depressing, but not surprising. The criticisms on Wednesday were about Obama continuing to use powers he decried when Bush was using them. Unfortunately nobody who wants to be chief executive is likely to give up any power.
Y’know, one can’t really afford to find it depressing when reality is pointed out. Makes life even more unpleasant.
Sometimes I feel like turning to the guy beside me and asking him: “Really, dude? The Repubs were not exaggerating, YOU honestly thought he was going to bring forth some sort of Millennium? I just wanted someone whose policies I’d find tolerable most of the time. I got THAT.”
Many people are operating from a misconception that the $20B escrow promise obtained by the Prez is for cleanup; it’s apparently actually for relief to those impacted by the spill (fishermen, coastal businesses, etc.). The Republicans were questioning (and Barton even apologizing for and calling it “a tragedy of the first proportion”) THAT set-aside.
You realize, of course, that it is only cheap because it is so heavily subsidized and the industry is not required to pay for all of its externalities. Don’t you?
What? Why? Becuase they had the audacity to believe that someone clearly as intelligent and articulate as Obama might actually have the integrity to stand by his statements once in power?
We all know how politics works, and perhaps people shouldn’t be surpised that politicians don’t fulfill all their promises (though Obamas backtracking has been particularly disturbing). But the sort of cynicism you’re proposing - that people shouldn’t bother even hoping for something better - would be the end of Democracy. Why bother if they’re all exactly the same.
And you really think McCain would have been better? Have you seen how crazy the GOP is?
Everyone’s favorite batshit insane representative from Minnesota didn’t say that exactly, but it’s clear that Michelle Bachmann is against the BP escrow account. (Well, she’s against anything Obama says anyway just in principle, even if he said that 2+2=4 or the sun is the center of the solar system.)
She was interviewed by Kathy Wurzer on MPR yesterday morning, claiming that Obama was trying to nationalize BP and take over private industry and bankrupt BP and whatever other talking points she could include in her short message. I believe she has a very valid point when she states that it’s likely that the government hasn’t done enough to actually solve the problem and stop the leak, but when she starts railing on about how much the U.S. has done to hurt big business, my eyes glaze over and I totally tune out.
So, it’s not that she feels that BP shouldn’t make good on its obligations, but that this represents just another government takeover of corporations, too much government regulation and interference with open markets, nationalization, socialism, blah blah blah. It’s too bad, really - I’d like to listen to and learn from opposing viewpoints, but not when they’re so obviously couched in talking points and rhetoric.
I think you go too far. Politicians will not live up to all their promises, and indeed their more unrealistic promises are showboating intended to mislead naive people. Politicians can make some promises that they can live up to.
One can form a rational view that you will vote for a particular politician based on their promises of the latter type, while also recognising that they they will make some promises of the former type.
But people aren’t saying you need to switch to another fuel source completely, they are saying ‘we need to be less dependant on foreign oil’. This could be realised by a combination of increasing domestic production, increased use of renewables and other local enery sources where possible and improving efficiency. Improving efficiency is far and away the biggest boon since it actually saves everybody money at the same time, and the people who fight against things like increasing minimum MPGs frequently are in the pockets of oil companies.
The complete dependance on foreign oil is like a yoke hanging around America’s neck. Not only does it give you an unsurmountable trade defecit but you’re dependent on countries that are diamatrically opposed to your core values and certainly don’t have your best interests at heart. Many thousands of couragous American’s have died as a result of this dependency. It is clearly in America’s best interest in both the short and long term to reduce the consumption of oil from foreign sources.
Incidentally we have the same problem in Europe with oil (of course) but also more worryingly with natural gas for which we are becoming largely dependent on supplies from Russia, who have demonstarted that they will turn the tap off if countries don’t meet their demands.
I agree completely, I think that is how I view things - I didn’t expect Obama to be able to transform America in the way that’s suggested by some of his speaches for instance.
What worries me is that he claimed to be oppossed to things like Guantanimo Bay, Special Rendition and various abuses of power, a policy that most freedom loving people (pardon the cliche ) would support wholeheartedly. Stopping these were things that you could reasonable have expected him to do, and I still don’t know why he hasn’t done them. That’s not my failing, that’s definitely his.
My understanding is the US government directly subsidizes the industry in the form of tax breaks for construction, R&D, and assisting in exploration. I understand (but am far from expert) that oil companies derive huge benefits from many aspects of tax law. Then there is the construction and maintenance of roads, access to public lands, and arguably at least a portion of our military/foreign policy costs. I could also argue that ineffectual oversight could be viewed as a subsidy. And oli uindustries benefit from subsidies to oil-dependent industries - air and auto for example…
Disclaimer - every energy industry receives some subsidies. Just saying they must be acknowledged when attempting to compare costs.
) would support wholeheartedly. Stopping these were things that you could reasonable have expected him to do, and I still don’t know why he hasn’t done them. That’s not my failing, that’s definitely his.