Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

The EPA wants to 'crucify oil companies' to keep them in line

2»

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    "Help from the government"- - - - -that's rich! The government is already helping itself to more in taxes from every phase of petroleum production than they're making in profits, and then they stick it to us consumers at the gas pump! Then they squander what they steal by supporting all the liberals' entitlement programs and throwing money away hand over fist to agencies like GSA or crooks like the Solyndra management. Defund the greedy sons of unwed mothers and maybe Uncle Sam wouldn't have to steal quite so much from hardworking taxpayers and successful businessmen!
    Jerry
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Come on Brim!

    What the heck do you want me to say? What level of profit would make you happy?
    I'm not saying that we should restrict anyone.
    But when corporations document record profits, they should not feel entitled to help from the government.

    Your comprehension of economics and capitalism seems near zero. All you see are corporate "robber barons" on Wall St. sucking up money and stuffing it deeply in their pockets. The reality was already explained to you, and you shut your eyes. Profits, large, small or in-between are what fuels our economic lives. Without profits, there are no employees, employee benefits, profit-sharing plans, capital for re-investment, maintenance and improvements, advertising, purchasing of equipment and automobiles, new plants, market exploration, income taxes, property taxes, state taxes, other federal taxes, retirement plans, dividends paid on all classes of stock, appreciation of stock on the open market contributing to wealth accumulation by all economic classes, rich and middle class and even poor.

    Progressive liberals want to kill the golden goose, so to speak. Tighten the economic noose around the throats of struggling, and successful business entrpreneurs. Make oil more difficult and expensive to bring to market, waste tax-payer money on pie-in-the-sky technologies that aren't ready for development, or never will be, like electric cars and algae pits. Tax the rich, as they see it, redistribute that wealth in give-away programs to those who don't produce a thing, and drive the budget to the verge of collapse, choking the free market economy. Control, control, control and we'll have a perfect society, you say. I say nonsense! Freedom should be the major concern, not government fiat, because only then will the most people benefit. Period.
  • BullgatorBullgator Member Posts: 393 Member
    Well of corse private companies will provide financing when the government guarantees the loan, it's free profits! Heads I win, tails you lose. If the loan works out they get their money back plus interest and if it fails the taxpayers foot the bill. Who wouldn't take that deal? It is literally the same thing as solyndra. It's actually exactly the same govt program that provides the guarantees.

    Let me make clear that I don't necessarily have a problem with any of this, we need energy for our economy to function and if we're going to subsidize any industry energy is probably the best investment. We just need to stop pretending that "green energy" is the only energy that is subsidized.

    When was the last time the federal government had to pay out on a defaulted loan for a nuclear power plant? The closest thing to that I can remember was the case of the Shoreham nuclear plant. The government gave the utility (LILCO) license to build the plant (which they did to the tune of $6 billion). After the plant was completed, the government refused to issue a license to operate the plant. Six billion dollars down the drain. This is the way the licensing system works. I can understand why investors want a guarantee that they won't be left holding the bag if the government pulls the rug out from under the project.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,400 Senior Member
    What Bullgator said.
    I worked for TVA, a government entity, in nuclear power. Three plants in various stages of construction were abandoned, and one, Bellefonte, stands 95% complete. They are all being paid for from revenue from power generation. Legacy debt, they call it. The Watts Bar Unit 2 unit is being completed now; it was started in the late 1970s. The plants that were abandoned were abandoned because of skyrocketing construction costs that were from direct actions of the NRC. Bellefonte may never be completed; loans are not obtainable for it. The Watts Bar unit will cost more to complete that it's sister, Unit 1, cost to build. Regulatory shenanigans have driven the costs out the roof. And my electric rates have already gone up to support the Unit 2 completion.

    Small 500-1000 Megawatt 'package' nuclear generating stations have been in existence for over a decade. They are cookie cutter design, all alike in every way. And much cheaper to build and maintain. And safe beyond anything that came before. Nobody will build one due to the regulatory jihad against nuclear power. That's a stone cold FACT!

    Georgia has a new nuclear plant being built, but it is on the site of an existing plant. That cuts out a lot of the :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss: bullsqueeze from the regulators, NIMBYS, and other entities that don't want nuclear power plants. If they had tried to site the plant at a different location, the first shovelful of dirt would not have been turned for at least ten years because of the regulatory licensing :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss: filth that has to be dealt with from the start of the application, and the application process can cost a few hundred million to complete. That's a lot of money to spend even before the first shovel hits the ground, if it hits the ground at all.

    So it does cost more to build nuclear, and there are reasons for it. But with the new regulations on coal that have ended new, and probably existing, coal generation, and the coming regulations on gas generation, nuclear is the only viable option for clean, reliable large generating stations. Didn't know about the gas generation regulations being proposed? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! They emit CO2, or did that FACT escape you? The regs are already being proposed for gas generating plants.

    BTW, the tree hugging EPA snot wad that made the comment about 'crucifying oil companies' is now unemployed; he resigned before he was fired.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,400 Senior Member
    And since subsidies got brought up, why are the ones that brought it up not screaming bloody murder at the HUGE subsidies the government doles out to the wind farms? Oh, that's right; they aren't Big Oil, so get a free pass, literally. I smell some hypocrisy going on here. Tax breaks and free money for wind farms = good; tax breaks for oil companies that are same-same as other businesses = bad. That's some convoluted logic right there.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,167 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    And since subsidies got brought up, why are the ones that brought it up not screaming bloody murder at the HUGE subsidies the government doles out to the wind farms? Oh, that's right; they aren't Big Oil, so get a free pass, literally. I smell some hypocrisy going on here. Tax breaks and free money for wind farms = good; tax breaks for oil companies that are same-same as other businesses = bad. That's some convoluted logic right there.

    Easy there, everyone knows green good, big oil bad............. Just relax..... take a sip.... koolaid.gif ...... now don't you feel better.

    Just because the Gov subidised two battery maufactureres for Government Motors Volt to get the price down to a mere $40,000. Only used one and defaulted on the other when they went bankrupt. Then will give you $7500 back..... No wait! Still not selling, we'll give $10,000 back if you buy this wonderful Volt........... Whoops, caught on fire did it? Darn it! That is releasing C02 into the air, I feel it getting warmer already!
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,400 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    Easy there, everyone knows green good, big oil bad............. Just relax..... take a sip.... koolaid.gif ...... now don't you feel better.

    Just because the Gov subidised two battery maufactureres for Government Motors Volt to get the price down to a mere $40,000. Only used one and defaulted on the other when they went bankrupt. Then will give you $7500 back..... No wait! Still not selling, we'll give $10,000 back if you buy this wonderful Volt........... Whoops, caught on fire did it? Darn it! That is releasing C02 into the air, I feel it getting warmer already!

    That sheep sipping gov't Kool-Aid is some funny stuff! :spittingcoffee: Maybe not, though. Too many of the sheep doing that. Drugs, even from the gov't are baaa-aad MK?
    An electric car that has to have a gas engine to supply the electricity to get to the local Stop'n'Rob and back because the battery capacity is lousy not selling even with a $10,000 discount from Uncle Shugar? Heresy! I can't afford one, but I'm helping pay for the people with six figure incomes that do. That blows sideways. A battery that shorts out and causes a fire in the vehicle? Shocking! :rotflmao:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Mike, what happened to the nuke plant that got started in Hartsville Tennessee? I seem to remember most of the infrastructure got completed, but the reactor never got built? I know it was a big money pit for a long time.
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,400 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Mike, what happened to the nuke plant that got started in Hartsville Tennessee? I seem to remember most of the infrastructure got completed, but the reactor never got built? I know it was a big money pit for a long time.
    Jerry

    Remember when the electric rates went up back then? It was taken off the books as a loss, and the loans were paid off. They also sold off a lot of the equipment to other nuclear plants. Customers got gored on that deal, and the others. They did, and still do, make a little money off movie companies that use a couple of the sites as movie sets. They flooded one of the incomplete buildings to shoot scenes for an underwater movie several years ago.

    Bellefonte was considered at one time as a good choice for conversion to natural gas. Not enough investors could be found to make the deal viable.

    At least one of the plants had the switch yard completed. They use it to transmit power from one place to another. A very expensive switch yard my any measure.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    After a little research, I read in the paper today that the APA official did not single out oil companies when he made that statement.
    It happened two years ago, I thought that it was more recent.
    The guy said that the EPA should prosecute to the full extent of the law any violators of environmental laws, not just oil companies.
    Jim
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,167 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    That sheep sipping gov't Kool-Aid is some funny stuff!

    I have it saved. I forsee a lot of use for it in the future


    Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    After a little research, I read in the paper today that the APA official did not single out oil companies when he made that statement.
    It happened two years ago, I thought that it was more recent.
    The guy said that the EPA should prosecute to the full extent of the law any violators of environmental laws, not just oil companies.
    Jim

    The guy in question resigned, admitting to just a bit of bully boy tactics that were groundless in law:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/30/epa-official-who-sought-to-crucify-oil-companies-has-resigned/
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,400 Senior Member
    The guy in question resigned, admitting to just a bit of bully boy tactics that were groundless in law:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/30/epa-official-who-sought-to-crucify-oil-companies-has-resigned/

    IIRC, that company drilling for gas paid out over $4 million to prove that they weren't contaminating wells. And it took a federal judge to donkey punch the EPA into line and drop the baseless, groundless, pulled out of their six charges.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    And the greenies take the high moral ground as the government marches down to road to totalitarianism. Absolutely incredible. Greenies, liberals, progressives, their only value is big government as the saviour of the planet.

    totalitarianism: 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority -
    Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (an oldie but goodie).
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Funny how things change but stay the same.
    Teddy Roosevelt was labelled a progressive because of his stance on child labor, shorter work weeks, womens rights, his fight against trusts that controlled interstate commerce (choking what they called free market economy), environmental protection and so on.
    We as individuals hate to be regulated, I agree. But regulation by the federal government of corporations is needed.
    The airlines are regulated to ensure our safety. Chemical companies are regulated to protect the environment. Coal and other mines can no longer strip the topsoil to get access to minerals without remediation.
    Unrestricted capitalism is simply the role of big money.
    It was true in Roosevelts time and it is in ours.
    Do you really think that the Wall St. moguls give a crap about you and me?? I have news, they don't.
    If it weren't for "progressives" we'd be working sixty hour weeks without vacations, health care, workmens compensation and so on.
    You have to lean forward, not accept the status quo.
  • casinoroyalecasinoroyale Member Posts: 68 Member
    And the greenies take the high moral ground as the government marches down to road to totalitarianism. Absolutely incredible. Greenies, liberals, progressives, their only value is big government as the saviour of the planet.

    totalitarianism: 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority -
    Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (an oldie but goodie).

    Yeah, it's the greenies. Not the massive multinational corporations that shove millions of dollars into politics. Nope, it's the greenies.

    We are moving dangerously closer to authoritarianism. Take bills such as CISPA, which restricts the freedom of the internet. Or the failed bills of SOPA and PIPA. But who supported those bills? Was it greenies? No - it was corporations. Or take the Patriot Act. Greenies? Nope, so-called "patriots" under Bush and Obama. How about the fact that drones are bumping off US citizens, or that the US can not detain citizens indefinitely thanks to the Defense Authorization Act? That must be the greenies! Nope, again.

    Who supports all of this? Is it greenies? No, it isn't. It is so-called liberals and so-called conservatives - both fairly meaningless terms by now (the original definition of liberal was quite different, and conservative can mean a variety of things). So why do these so-called liberals and conservatives support this? Its about money, and money comes through power. The past decade has seen an explosion of money in politics, and the bulk of this money comes from the elites and the corporations, not the greenies.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    The very essense of socialism is totalitarianism. Physically taking from those who have and redistributing those assets to others is using force by government fiat. In Russia, they literally took the assets of the capitalists, the factories and the physical plants, by force, and treated the businesspeople like criminals. Listen to the left rail about all the profits of the oil companies, the greed that drives the very concept of "profits". The very concept that the "people" are being taken advantage of. Gasoline prices are too high, they say, while the oil robber barons are pocketing enormous profits. That, in the eyes of the left is "evil". Or, at least, that's the concept they're selling. That is totalitarianism. Foisting an unconstitutional health care law upon the nation is totalitarianism, and then challenging SCOTUS to find in its favor is an attempt at totalitarianism, fiat by government order, in violation of law (the Constitution).
    Taking tax revenues and investing them in favored industries (untried, unproven, and surely controversial) is surely a form of crony favoritism by government fiat. Forcing people to participate in health insurance schemes (or face a fine) is pure intimidation, and people control. Mandating health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is more government fiat, intimidation, and totalitarianism. No more free markets.
    Uncontrolled spending in the area of entitlements and other benefits, with programs that are financially unsustainable, with tax payer revenues, is forced redistribution of wealth, and completely irresponsible as government spending and controls spirals out of control, threating chaos and financial disaster.

    That's a start, there's lots more, but you get the idea. All justified in the name of "doing good" for people. Hah.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Teach,
    Respectfully, I'm not talking about the government and its tax policy, or entitlements.
    I'm talking about corporations making record profits and still receiving government handouts.
    Stick to the issue.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    So your solution, communism, is better than allowing the free market to work? No thanks! I spent a lot of years wearing a uniform and helping to protect our way of life from people like you. I'm not about to change now.
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,400 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Teach,
    Respectfully, I'm not talking about the government and its tax policy, or entitlements.
    I'm talking about corporations making record profits and still receiving government handouts.
    Stick to the issue.

    Can you explain what government handouts the oil companies get? You keep referring to government handouts without specifying what you're talking about.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement