Nationalization of oil industry

O

oldredneck

New member
Has anyone else heard that the Dimocrats are considering nationalizing the oil industry in the U.S.? If this is true, it's the first step in moving toward a socialist (communist) government which is what the liberals have been leading up to for the last decade. I've also heard they want to ban conservative commentators from radio and T.V. Again, if these rumors are true, how long can it be before our guns are confiscated by the ATF in the middle of the night and various other rights are taken away. Once we're disarmed they can begin a redistribution of wealth and land, except, of course, for the elite like Obama, the Clintons, Kennedys, etc.
 
Last edited:
Nationalizing oil industry. Click here. 2 minute clip

"Fairness Doctrine" This law basically says that the owner of a radio station must give equal time to all viewpoints in programming. Of course, new organizations are exempt, but talk shows would be off the air. I don't know if this would apply to satellite.
 
More right wing distortions.

Once again facts trounce fear mongering. No the Democrat Party has not proposed to nationalize oil companies. One Dem rep has made a suggestion of nationalizing the oil refineries to combat the high oil prices. It is a scare tactic to get oil companies to comply to lowering their prices. Anyway, it would never happen since most Dems are in the hands of big oil. On your other points. The Dems do not want to ban Conservative media, but they do want fairness. Which means equal time from both POVs on the radio. It seems their are now more Pro-gun Democrats in the house of Representaives than Republican so I do not see the Dems will be pushing more gun control anytime soon. Yes, the majority leaders will squawk about more gun control but it will not happen. And BTW, Bush has done far more in eight years to destroy our rights than Clinton did in eight. Lets see the accomplishments of the Bush administration; Patriot act, domestic spying, Plame case, imprisonment of battlefield combatants with no trial, all this because of the so called "war on terrorism" and lets not forget the high level cronyism unseen since Nixon. Yes, conservatives are just bastions of freedom, and virtue. Thank the gods they will all be thrown out in Nov. OBTW, Bush said he would sign any control bill that crossed his desk. Luckily for us none made it that far.
 
House Democrats Call for Nationalized Refineries

Washington, Jun 18 - Two weeks ago, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) shocked many observers when she admitted to oil company executives during a House committee hearing, “This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”

Most of those watching that hearing simply assumed Rep. Waters’ wild threat was just another extreme idea from someone on the far-left fringe of the Democratic Party. But today, a leading energy voice for House Democrats proved that her dream of nationalizing the oil industry isn’t as far-fetched as some may believe. Rather, it just may be the House Democrats’ worst kept secret.

In front of a sea of news cameras at a press conference earlier today, when senior House Democrats discussed the ongoing energy crisis that has spun out of control on their watch, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) dropped this bombshell as he stood next to House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL): He proposed a Washington takeover of the entire oil industry! Here’s what Rep. Hinchey said:

“Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that’s a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market…”

“So if there’s any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they’d be willing to have these refineries owned publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put out on the market.”

“To me, that sounds like a very good idea.”
Click to expand...

Rep. Hinchey is not unfamiliar with energy policy. Rather, he is a leader on the issue for House Democrats and was chosen by Democratic leaders to appear at today’s press conference because of his energy expertise. After all, he serves on the powerful Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which controls federal spending on many energy-related matters, and the Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over energy and environmental matters.
 
Alway, consider the source of the information. The above poster posted a link to a Right wing website, with a clip from Fox News. No bias there. :rolleyes:
 
Remember that none of what Bush has done could have been done without Democrat support. Surely you aren't naive enough to believe only the Republicans are on the payroll of big oil and other conglomerates. Congress is a very lucrative business, why else would someone spend millions of dollars to get a job paying $150,000 or so. Remember also that the Democrat controlled congress has a lower rating than Bush. The two liberal stars, Clinton and Obama, have both pushed socialized medicine with those of us having private health insurance paying for coverage for everyone through surcharges on our premiums. Before you talk about fairness on the airways you need the compare the number of liberal commentators to the number of conservative commentators. If you judge fairly, I think you'll have to agree the liberals are in the majority on the airwaves.
 
Pick and choose.

Remember that none of what Bush has done could have been done without Democrat support.
Click to expand...

Ah but most Dems did not support Bush. Some did and they should pay for that. Then again the Dems did not control congress or give him a free pass like the Republicans.

Surely you aren't naive enough to believe only the Republicans are on the payroll of big oil and other conglomerates.
Click to expand...

You did not read my post did you?

he two liberal stars, Clinton and Obama, have both pushed socialized medicine with those of us having private health insurance paying for coverage for everyone through surcharges on our premiums.
Click to expand...

Ah its not socialized medicine like in Europe. You would know this if you actually read Hillary's or Obama's healthcare plans. The government will control pricing, and offer subsidized care to people that can not afford it. Everyone else will have insurance through private companies but at reduced rates. The the hospitals and doctors will still be private.

Before you talk about fairness on the airways you need the compare the number of liberal commentators to the number of conservative commentators. If you judge fairly, I think you'll have to agree the liberals are in the majority on the airwaves.
Click to expand...

Nope most TV new and newspapers are controlled by large international corporations like GE that make money. They care little about journalistic integrity or fairness. Hence the reason no reporters questioned the lead up to the Iraq war. It was not in the best interest of the controlling corporation that would make billions off the war.
 
Alway, consider the source of the information. The above poster posted a link to a Right wing website, with a clip from Fox News. No bias there.
Click to expand...

The clip from Fox news was a tape of Maxine Waters saying what she said. How can you spin that?
 
FwdAss,
Do you find it in the slightest bit hypocritical that you cried foul over the OP hyperbolizing then indulged in some of your own? Your the flip side of it, just as willing to reshape and present as he is. Your as intellectually dishonest as anyone else and consistently so. Enough fained sanctimony.

The reality is that 2 Democrats have stated publicly the desire to nationalize the oil industry. Maxine Water directly stated that 'this Liberal will be about socializing.......basicly.....basically taking over all of your companies and having the government run them.' That's her own words in a congressional hearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKh7uqucArk

The second is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer speaking for House Democrats in response to the President calling for lifting the restrictions on off shore drilling. His proposal was to allow off shore drilling in exchange for nationalizing the refineries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Zg...http://i.ytimg.com/vi/41Zg8xizUJ8/default.jpg

Again House Democrats standing together with him on stage.

This isn't hyperbole, it's reality. And it goes to motive on the behavior of Democrats refusing to lift the restrictions in the face of a serious economic problem.

As for the media, people are aware that the message that sells is the message that's aired. Liberal ideas don't sell so liberal media goes bust. To FORCE a message that has been heard and repeatedly rejected (ANOTHER Air America investor stepping up?) by making it a law is ala Hugo Chavez taking control of the Venezuelan media outlets. Frankly so is nationalizing the oil industry. Now that I think about it Hugo is big with Liberals and I'm seeing why now. HRMMM
 
“Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that’s a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market…”
Click to expand...

I hate Democrats in general, but...

This is a Good Idea. Hear me out.

They don't have an ounce of just cause to TAKE a refinery from anybody. But, a little competition never hurt anybody.

Case in point: I used to live in Tacoma, WA. The cable company there was extremely slow in adopting high speed internet and expanded cable choices, and many felt it was actually malicious market manipulation. So... the City of Tacoma created their own cable and ISP utility to compete with the private provider.

Within a year, the private provider (it was either Cox or AT&T, I can't remember right now) had lost considerable business and offered an inferior product.

Tacoma didn't hijack any property of Cox/AT&T... they built their own infrastructure to compete.

This is an example of government doing something WELL.

Now, can the FedGov operate as efficiently? I doubt it. But since we haven't had a new refinery in decades, I'm okay with Uncle Sam opening up a new one to try to compete with the big kids. All it can do is increase supply at the pump, which is just fine.
 
WoW. That's a very disturbing story. More so in that it was presented as a good idea.

How in the world is a private company to compete with a publicly financed entity? In this case the City of Tacoma. The statement that it was perceived as market manipulation and then solved by a more egregious market manipulation as a good idea?

The market does depend on healthy competition for certain. Competition breeds excellence and fairness. But the responsibility of government is to keep the playing field level NOT to open a for profit company and devastate the market for private companies. Take away whatever leverage the company had to retain a monopoly NOT take over the monopoly.

I's astounding that broadband internet and expanded cable was considered such a public necessity as to be secured by the local government.

Perhaps the left coast is more open to socialism then originally thought.

I hope the local government is open to offering all points of view on their new hold on the dissemination of information.

Was this a Democrat lead City Government that did this?
 
Bruxley:

This ISP/Cable Provider had a monopoly on the market. No other providers were available.

I don't know the political climate of the city at the time. King/Pierce counties tend to be fairly liberal, so I'd guess the board was predominantly Democrat.

The market does depend on healthy competition for certain. Competition breeds excellence and fairness. But the responsibility of government is to keep the playing field level NOT to open a for profit company and devastate the market for private companies. Take away whatever leverage the company had to retain a monopoly NOT take over the monopoly.
Click to expand...

The reason for opening the ISP/Cable utility was to break up a monopoly that the State and Federal governments refused to act upon, after petitions from the citizens of Tacoma and the governing agencies of Tacoma. I can't remember for certain, but I THINK the action to create the utility went to public referendum.

How in the world is a private company to compete with a publicly financed entity? In this case the City of Tacoma. The statement that it was perceived as market manipulation and then solved by a more egregious market manipulation as a good idea?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? There are examples of private/public competition all over the place.

1. UPS/FEDEX/DHL versus USPS
2. BRINKS/ADT versus 911
3. Private security versus Municipal Police
4. HOA's versus city taxes for parks
5. Trash/Sanitation services
6. Power utilities - some are public entities, some are private.

The list goes on, ad nauseum.

Competition keeps government honest... and business.
 
Nationalizing oil

is a dumb idea, and nobody is proposing it.

However....

What would be wrong, either marketwise or ethically, with changing the lease terms for private exploration on public lands such that if the oil produced is sold into the American market, the royalties are less than if the oil goes into the international markets?

The oil is under our land, with full mineral and resource rights. That makes it our oil. As the property owners, We the People have every right to set whatever terms we want for the use of our property.

NB: Nobody that I know of has proposed anything like this. So far as I know, it's my idea.

--Shannon
 
What would be wrong, either marketwise or ethically, with changing the lease terms for private exploration on public lands such that if the oil produced is sold into the American market, the royalties are less than if the oil goes into the international markets?
Click to expand...

Oil is unfortunately a global commodity.

Our stuff in Alaska gets sold to Japan, China and South Korea. None of it comes down here.

But... that's that much less oil that Japan, China and South Korea try to buy from Canada or Mexico, which are both closer to us than Alaska and farther from them than Alaska.

The result: more Canadian/Mexican oil available for US markets as a result of increased Alaskan exports.

It would actually cost us more as consumers to buy Alaskan oil than Canadian/Mexican oil, due to transport costs.
 
The oil companies are already publicly owned. Their profits are already subject to dispersement. These are publicly traded companies. Their ownership is spread proportionate to the number of shares owned. Sell a share get some profit. Stop making a profit and the shares will get sold quickly and the company goes bust. The obligation of the company is to continue to make a profit for it's shareholders.

The examples given about competing with Government above are Private entities responding to Government showing it's typical inability to efficiently operate an enterprise. Let the Government begin operating the oil industry and you get the superb results like the USPS, Amtrak, Social Security, et al at nausium.

Local Governments providing essential services to the public such as water, sanitation, electricity, and life safety services is a much different thing then local governments opening for profit entertainment services like broadband internet and expanded cable. It's VERY VERY hard to believe no other entities were interested in a market the size of Tacoma Washington and that cable was the only source of high speed internet of expanded TV services. No phone company offering high speed? No Dish TV or Direct TV? No satellite internet or wireless services to the home from a cellular provider like Sprint? Very hard to believe. Far more likely a potential revenue stream for the City by the City government and a period of vilianizing the private company(ies) (such as what is going on with the oil industry now) followed by a 'progressive solution' by a concerned government for the needs of it's people made a public referendum a slam dunk.

I think this would make for a good thread in and of it's self. The seeds of socialism and how it can be presented in a savory manner.

What is the political science term for creating a villain/problem/crisis and then presenting yourself as the best solution?
 
The Chinese and the Soviets tried what Maxine is proposing.

Anyone paying attention over the last 30 years noticed that it DID NOT WORK.

What Chavez has done also will fail. People work best when they work for their own selfish interest, thats capitalism.
 
Another Example

In another thread we can read about how well our schools are operating. Our public schools are a government entity, are they not?
 
The liberal democrats are saying that the oil refineries, owned by the corporations, are not doing a good job of distributing the product, lol. Exxon Mobil only owns 6% of the oil it sells, the amount of oil coming into and out of the refineries is at a consistent level. The govt claiming that they can better manage the output of oil is absurd and rediculous. This will be an unmitigated disaster, just like every other big govt program. By the way, the oil companies don't set the price of oil, global demand does, countries such as India and China are sucking this stuff up at record levels. Global demand right now is at 87 million barrels/day, but production has been stagnant at 85 million barrels/day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top