Let's Sabotage Candidates Who Take Oil Money :mad:

[Telemark]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

It will make fuel more expensive, but face it, that makes sense anyway.

You still haven’t made your case that oil/gas is worse than other industries.

[LonghornDave]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I am talking about candidates and political campaigns. The government may want to consider increasing its taxes and fees on oil and gasoline. It will make fuel more expensive, but face it, that makes sense anyway.

Look, if you are talking about candidates and political campaigns then you are simply way off on your numbers. There is no where close to billions of dollars being donated by oil companies to candidates. That was the simple point I was making. Disregarding all of the other things I think you are off base on in this thread, I was simply trying to correct you on an easy one: the magnitude of dollars that we are talking about. I was making an indirect joke when I asked if you were proposing to stop collecting taxes and royalties because that is the only way we would get to the dollar amounts you were saying. Just dial it back and say millions instead of billions. I mean seriously, as shown in a prior post, Obama was the top beneficiary of BP donations over the past 20 years and it was only $77,051.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@LonghornDave

I was simply trying to correct you on an easy one: the magnitude of dollars that we are talking about.

Let’s correct each other on the magnitude of dollars. I am talking about a constriction to 10m bbl per day US consumption as an aggressive goal. Some paper pushers are going to be very upset about that, and that is just too bad. Sorry

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Frank

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper’s Index:

Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Ravenman

Could you provide a citation that isn’t a video clip from a comedy show? I can’t watch those at work.

I can totally dig it. Here is a partial response to your request, hopefully time will allow a more comprehensive answer in the coming days.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation’s independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind’s previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

[Ravenman]

Thanks for the text citation. What it shows me is that Jimmy Carter was really, really, really wrong about how much oil there is in the world. He basically declared peak oil in 1977, and that supplies would run out by 1990. Well, here we are.

Now, back to the larger point. Carter called for alternative energy projects. They didn’t succeed. Are you saying Jimmy Carter was/is in the pocket of Big Oil?

Sorry, but that is just laughable.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Ravenman

Thanks for the text citation. What it shows me is that Jimmy Carter was really, really, really wrong about how much oil there is in the world. He basically declared peak oil in 1977, and that supplies would run out by 1990. Well, here we are.

Now, back to the larger point. Carter called for alternative energy projects. They didn’t succeed. Are you saying Jimmy Carter was/is in the pocket of Big Oil?

Sorry, but that is just laughable.

Sure, Carter was very wrong about the amount of oil in the world. He seems not to have accounted for new discoveries (which have been in decline for decades) or something. Still, at current global consumption rates it appears inevitable that production will hit a ceiling, and that we may already be there.

The projects didn’t succeed for lots of reasons. Some of the ideas were backwards or being newly developed. Congress certainly wasn’t a big fan of the plan, and who are we talking about taking oil money? Congressional candidates among others.

We have a variety of viable technologies available now that were not 40 years ago. Making them work is the smartest mid-long range planning we can do. Oil isn’t getting any cheaper or more plentiful. We very much want to avoid a ‘fuel gap’, where the supply simply can’t meet the demand.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

@Frank

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper’s Index:

Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0

This has been debunked about a hundred times here already. Obama’s “BP” campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@Try2B_Comprehensive

@Frank

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper’s Index:

Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0

This has been debunked about a hundred times here already. Obama’s “BP” campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

We’ll see if it slides off other candidates so easily :mad:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Um… I’m sorry that reality didn’t fit your narrative?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

This has been debunked about a hundred times here already. Obama’s “BP” campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

They’d have to, though. Obama didn’t take PAC money and it is illegal for companies to just give candidates money. So when you say “company X gave candidate y money”, that means “company x’s employees gave candidate y money.”

[Marley23]

@Captain_Amazing

Obama didn’t take PAC money and it is illegal for companies to just give candidates money. So when you say “company X gave candidate y money”, that means “company x’s employees gave candidate y money.”

Corporations can give money to PACs, though. Saying the company gave money to a candidate and that its employees gave money to a candidate are not necessarily the same thing, and in this case, they’re not the same.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Captain_Amazing

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

This has been debunked about a hundred times here already. Obama’s “BP” campaign contributions came wholly from individual BP employees, not from BP or the various PACs it supports.

They’d have to, though. Obama didn’t take PAC money and it is illegal for companies to just give candidates money. So when you say “company X gave candidate y money”, that means “company x’s employees gave candidate y money.”

Except that other candidates do accept PAC money, so unless you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give early and often to Obama, the idea that Obama was the beneficiary of BP’s largesse and therefore beholden to BP is ludicrous.

Of course, if you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give to Obama, that is also ludicrous.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course, if you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give to Obama, that is also ludicrous.

I’m not claiming they did. I have no idea. It’s not ludicrous, though. I’m sure you’ve heard of bundling.

[LonghornDave]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Let’s correct each other on the magnitude of dollars. I am talking about a constriction to 10m bbl per day US consumption as an aggressive goal. Some paper pushers are going to be very upset about that, and that is just too bad. Sorry

Exactly what are you correcting me on? You specifically said you were talking about billions of dollars to candidates and political campaigns. I can correct you because you are saying something incorrect here. There are not billions of dollars going to candidates and political campaigns. If you want to correct me on something incorrect I have said, go for it. It would be nice if you actually pointed out what that was instead of making some sort of non-sequiter statement.

Further, it’s not going to be random paper pushers who would be upset about reducing the oil consumption to 10 mmbbl/d. It’s probably going to be the tens of millions of people who would no longer be able to afford to drive a car or fly in an airplane since the only way you are going to reduce consumption by that amount is to simply tax the shit out of it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Captain_Amazing

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course, if you are claiming that BP quietly ordered its employees to give to Obama, that is also ludicrous.

I’m not claiming they did. I have no idea. It’s not ludicrous, though. I’m sure you’ve heard of bundling.

Even Rush Limbaugh hasn’t had the temerity to suggest BP illegally bundled contributions to Obama.

[gonzomax]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

@Frank

But I admit that I am mildly skeptical that Obama is, as a member of a political party generally anti-big power, and after only four years in the Senate and a year and a half as President, the greatest recipient of BP political money of the last twenty years.

From the latest Harper’s Index:

Total campaign contributions Barack Obama received from BP between 2004 and 2009: $77,051
Number of politicians who accepted more in donations from BP during that period: 0

That is not enough to buy him. So it is a meaningless statistic.
It is not just through campaign contributions ,but huge lobbying power that big business get an advantage. They also have personal access to the politicians. I don’t play at the same golf course as oil execs and politicians do. i don’t get invited to the parties they all go to. We don’t vacation together. Those that do have a far greater input than we .

[Captain_Amazing]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Even Rush Limbaugh hasn’t had the temerity to suggest BP illegally bundled contributions to Obama.

Bundling isn’t illegal. It’s not even disclosable under a lot of circumstances. And a lot of bundling went on in 2008, to all the major candidates. Here’s a list of reportable Obama bundlers:

Bundlers, Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

I have done a terrible job staying on top of this thread. I still want to respond to comments from last week :rolleyes:

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Um… I’m sorry that reality didn’t fit your narrative?

I think I have been accused of this on both sides of the issue now. This isn’t about Obama. Let’s look at the facts on current candidates. Let’s suggest that the ones taking a lot of oil money may have a conflict of constituencies. There is the public constituency, the citizens who get to vote for free no matter what, yada yada. And then there is the constituency of oil companies and their money. Sometimes a candidate gets themselves into a political situation, no? Sometimes they position themselves such that they are torn between which constituency to serve. I don’t think we can let this kind of thing continue to influence energy policy.

:mad:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

So, we should have publicly funded elections? I’m all for that.