Home / Culture and Society / Obama, Oil, Foreign Policy

Obama, Oil, Foreign Policy

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Talk about dishonesty! President Barack Hussein Obama, while in the White House Rose Garden, said, “Congress up until this point has thought it was a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry.” Not one cent has ever, during the Obama administration, been sent to the oil industry. So, again, we have Obama demonstrably lying. He was trying to get the Senate to end oil company tax incentives, something available to ANY company. But the Democrat controlled Senate did not go along with Obama. The Senate bill needed 60 votes to clear a Senate procedural rule, different from a filibuster, but as widely predicted, it failed on a vote of 51-47, mainly along party lines. The proposal, sponsored by Robert Menendez (D-MD), would have cut billions of dollars in tax breaks for the “big five” oil companies: ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell. Obama, who has proposed eliminating even more subsidies than Menendez has, hailed the bill, with his administration releasing a statement in support of it. And there’s that word “subsidies” again. Will the Obama mendacity ever cease?

Obama said, “With only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. Not when we consume 20 percent of the world’s oil.” But the 2 percent figure Obama uses refers to proved oil reserves and greatly undercounts how much oil the US actually has. In fact, far from being oil poor, the country has vast quantities of oil; enough to meet all the country’s oil needs for hundreds of years. The US has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2 percent of the entire world’s proved reserves, but proved reserves are a small subset of recoverable resources because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields. When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US according to various government reports. The US has 60 times more oil than Obama claims.

Exxon Mobil is no longer the world’s biggest publicly traded producer of oil. For the first time, that distinction belongs to Chinese company PetroChina, the Beijing collosus created by the Chinese government 13 years ago to secure more oil for that nation’s booming economy. PetroChina announced that it pumped 2.4 million barrels a day last year, surpassing Exxon by 100,000 barrels a day. The company has grown rapidly over the last decade by extracting more from China’s aging oil fields, and by outspending Western companies to acquire more petroleum reserves in places like Canada, Iraq and Qatar.

So with Obama’s proclivity for not being honest (not even close to honesty), and China’s big oil interests in the Middle East, let’s look at how oil self-sufficiency (some would say energy independence) could impact US foreign policy.

The US currently devotes about $50 billion of its military budget to patrolling the Persian Gulf and stationing thousands of troops in the region. The US hypocritically calls for Middle East democracy while supporting medieval sheikdoms and monarchies in the oil-exporting gulf. Petrodollars from the US seem to find their way into the hands of terrorists bent on killing Americans and their allies. An energy self-sufficient US may not need to protect Middle East oil fields and shipping lanes. US foreign policy, for once, really could be predicated on the principle of supporting those nations that embrace constitutional government and human rights, without worry that offended dictators, theocrats and kings would turn off the spigots. Without high oil prices, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would just be neighborhood loudmouths, rather than regional threats.

An energy self-sufficient US could also relieve pressure on nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America, that would save billions of dollars on their imported energy bills.

Farmers, manufacturers and heavy industries could gain an edge over foreign competitors, as everything from fertilizer and plastics to shipping and electrical power would become less expensive.

The world was transformed in the 1970s, when world oil prices quadrupled. We should do our part in ensuring that at last the tables are turned in our favor. And we can if only Obama and his silly “green energy” policy will just get out of the way.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by


  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet –

    Actually, come to think of it, the most popular locations for those with alternative outlooks on sexuality (or should they be normal outlooks on sexuality?) are Thailand and Brazil. I never made that connection until now. I must be getting slow in my old age…..

  • Hunky horny sailors laying on the beaches wearing next to nothing?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I never did get to go to Brazil – Rio is (along with Pattaya Beach, Thailand) one of the two top destinations among sailors for port visits. I’ll leave it to your imaginations as to why that is….

  • When I was in Brazil, I was delighted to note that one of the major petroleum corporations there is called Super Gas Bras.

    It’s a wonderful country, I tell you.

  • Igor

    Glenn points out quite rightly that it is the political power of Big Oil that is holding back alternative fuels. It’s the Dead Hand Of The Past that has cursed all great civilizations.

    Even Big Oil has a problem replacing Big Oil. Both the Tar Sands oil and deep fracking oil that they hope to transition to carry extraordinary new costs, costs of both finished product and externalities (enviromental, war, opportunity cost, government cost, employment cost, etc.).

    Besides, who cares about the Big Oil companies? They don’t pay taxes and they’re foreign owned so the benefits of profits and subsidies goes to foreign investors, not Americans. In California they don’t even pay oil extraction fees for drilling! And the entire US oil industry only employs 310,000 workers (we already have over 2 million in the alternate energy business).

    There is absolutely no need to replace oil with a single product. Many different products and industries will replace the current energy producers with a broad spectrum of suppliers.

  • re:34

    The Brazilian car manufacturing industry developed flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on any proportion of gasoline (E20-E25 blend) and hydrous ethanol (E100). Introduced in the market in 2003, flex vehicles became a commercial success, reaching a record 92.3% share of all new cars and light vehicle sales for 2009. By December 2009 they represented 39% of Brazil’s registered Otto cycle light motor vehicle fleet, and the cumulative production of flex-fuel cars and light commercial vehicles reached the milestone of 10 million vehicles in March 2010, and 15.3 million units by March 2012.

    By mid 2010 there were 70 flex models available in the market manufactured from 11 major carmakers. The success of “flex” vehicles, together with the mandatory E25 blend throughout the country, allowed ethanol fuel consumption in the country to achieve a 50% market share of the gasoline-powered fleet in February 2008. In terms of energy equivalent, sugarcane ethanol represented 17.6% of the country’s total energy consumption by the transport sector in 2008.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Despite the fact that we’ve made significant inroads when it comes to fuel efficiency, you’re forgetting the biggest obstacle of all: the political power of Big Oil, enshrined not so long ago by the Supreme Court in a decision called Citizens United.

    When it comes to alternative energy, Cannonshop, it doesn’t happen all at once – it’s a long road, one step at a time. But no matter how good the vehicle is, it’s got to somehow overcome the political power not only of Big Oil…but also of Detroit. There’s a film you might be interested in, called “Who Killed the Electric Car”…and it shows quite clearly that as long as Big Business is able to impose its will on government (thanks to Conservatives, mind you), it’s very unlikely we’ll “drive a stake” into Big Oil in our lifetimes.

  • Zingzing

    To #33, I hope so. Pomposity and Roger have gone to bed together before… I had a laugh either way.

  • Cannonshop

    #13 Glenn,you want to put the stake in Big Oil? Here’s what you have to do:

    Develop a power source that will drive a Personally owned automobile at highway speeds, requires refilling/recharging about once a week for a typical commute of between 35 and 40 miles, carries 4 full-sized adults with the current highway safety requirements, and costs less than your house.

    That’ll put the big dent in big oil, right there. Basically the same room-temperature storage, ease of transmission, ease of application, as gasoline, with similar to same energy density per pound.

    Without it being oil, and without inflicting even MORE grievous environmental issues than oil.

    We already have ONE possible replacement for the second largest draw (okay, several really)-biodiesel works fine in tractors and would probably work fine for tractor-trailers and we KNOW it works in buses and aircraft, with similar portability, storage characteristics,etc. as fossil fuels.

    It’s easy to rant about “big Oil” but it’s hard to actually come up with real, working solutions that aren’t predicated on vaporware or utopian fantasies of ‘social change’.

  • Cannonshop

    #32 I think it’s Roger being a Smartass-aka being funny, like, on purpose and stuff.

    It’s not his usual style, so he’s probably not being serious.

  • zingzing

    heh. i like the bit about “authentic speech” amongst all the “civil obligations” and “polite repartee” and “engagements” and the “call of duty,” etc. i’m hoping roger has a sense of humor. but i dunno. maybe that was meant to be taken seriously. i can’t decide which way is more funny.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    A “no-prize”? Talk about a blast from the past!

    And “I bid you adieu” is laying it on a mite thick….

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’ve…discharged my civil obligation to you…”

    Is that a euphemism?

  • roger nowosielski

    I’ve already discharged my civil obligation to you, Dreadful, by way of polite repartee. To engage you any further in this matter would be going beyond the call of duty and no longer authentic speech on my part. So I do bid you adieu.

  • Costello

    I’ll nominate the Doctor’s train comment for a No-Prize like Marvel Comics used to give out. Funny stuff

    Is there anyone outside yourself who is a member of your particular audience, Rog?

  • Glenn Contrarian


  • My having responded to you signifies nothing other than my good form and politeness.

    Roger, you owe me a keyboard, or at least a primer on how to clean coffee off one.

  • roger nowosielski

    Whatever it takes, Dreadful, to burst your self-inflated bubble. All my addresses are geared ta a particular audience. If I seem to be splitting hairs on you, it’s because splitting hairs may well be what the doctor had ordered. But as a matter of fact, I usually don’t bother with unattractive, mundane minds. The only reason why I bothered in this instance, is that you used my name in vain. So I decided to let you have some of it back.

    Other than that, it has always been an exercise in futility to ever engage you, Dreadful, so don’t be under the impression now that things have changed. My having responded to you signifies nothing other than my good form and politeness. Not to have done so by ignoring you completely would have been rather rude, don’t you think?

  • Roger, you seem to have progressed far beyond splitting hairs and have now moved on to splitting atoms, so I hate to break it to you that a certain Dr Oppenheimer has pre-empted you by about seven decades.

    My original comment referred only to Jet’s and your shared habit of being unable to resist returning to conversations you had previously forsworn, so I’m not sure why we’re now talking about my alleged paucity of thinking.

    The denseness and woolliness of yours is nothing to be proud of, I assure you. As a little illustrative fantasy, I imagine you standing on the Union Pacific tracks just outside Emeryville, contemplating a light in the distance that is steadily getting brighter. You hear a horn, but dismiss it as the typical small-minded and predictable reaction of a liberal train driver, and then move on to a mental critique of Union Pacific as a corporation, and the advisability of dismantling it and restructuring it into a series of smaller, autonomous business units. As an aside, you remark scornfully on the whiteness of the light, that it is a typically unimaginative and predictable liberal colour, and that Kant would have made it green.

    Most non-Roger-type people would think, “It’s an 8000-ton fucking freight train, get out of the way”, and then successfully continue their earthly existences as non-Roger-type people by doing just that.

  • roger nowosielski

    “We”? I thought I addressed you directly, Dreadful, not any imaginary audience — although your initial plea was to “each and everyone.”

    It’d seem, therefore, that I circumvented your homegrown ploy and second-rate tactics by taking the paper bull — is it a work of
    origami, perchance? — by the horn.

    But I suppose that was too much subtlety for you to have noticed, since validate yourself you always must.

  • We have only your word for it that my thinking is “predictable”, Roger.

    You also have no idea who or what may or may not have been my “mentor”, so spare me the arrogance.

    I haven’t looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica (which, BTW, has been a United States publication for well over a century, in case that was meant to be some kind of dig at my nationality) in years.

    As for the rest of your comment, it may or may not be helpful if you could rewrite it in some coherent form, as currently it makes no sense whatsoever.

  • roger nowosielski

    As charming as your all-too-predictable and all-too-simplistic, textbook type of thinking, Dreadful, never having had a mentor you could call your own other than the ghosts who had authored the articles for the Encyclopedia Britannica?

    Au contraire, mon frère. A homegrown mind such as yours, there being no recognizable criteria to test it by while failure to measure up is beyond the realm of possibility, has got to be infinitely more charming and magical.

  • Six years ago I wrote in a different article…

    Early on in the planning concerning the war on Iraq, the original concept was simply to topple Saddam and put someone else in charge who would be friendlier towards the U.S. in the region. That would mean someone strong enough to keep the opposing factions in line, but more importantly someone who’d allow a few little (hardly even noticed, or worth mentioning) U.S. strategic military bases on Iraqi soil. These bases would be close enough to major targets in the area without endangering Israel becoming an object of retaliation, because the attacks were launched from Iraq.

    The U.S. would become a major influence in the Middle East, we’d become a major factor in the control of Iraq’s huge oil reserves and of setting their oil prices, and maybe finally forcing a peace that GW could take credit for. A good enough plan, even an admirable plan from the Bush White House.

    But remember a big favor hangs over Bush’s head for financing him into the Oval Office!

    Many outraged editorials were written after the beginning of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq about Bush just wanting the oil reserves for his buddies in Texas, but we’ve all been misled. The major powers that be in Houston not only didn’t want possession of the oil reserves in Iraq, they didn’t want anyone else to have them either.

    Yes you read that right!

    Originally the plan was to invade Iraq and release its huge oil reserves to the world market, plummeting oil prices, and then breaking the back and sabotaging the stranglehold that OPEC has on the world market. Bush would be a hero after gasoline prices dipped back to or even below a dollar a gallon, the economy would explode when Americans suddenly had more buying power, and GW would probably have a giant “Saddamesque” statue erected of himself in national mall that would rival the Washington Monument.

    Why was the plan sidelined in 2003?
    Bush needed/wanted/craved/coveted reelection in 2004, and, without big oil’s financial backing, that was simply not going to happen. Can you imagine the outrage in Houston when they caught wind of the White Houses’ plan? They weren’t about to let “good ole’ boy” Bush interfere with their own plans to completely suppress Iraq’s oil reserves, because if they were released, those record-breaking, obscene, and unimaginable oil company profits that everyone’s so outraged about lately (except rich Republican stock holders that is) would evaporate in mid air; that’s why!

  • This was written 6 years ago 4/27/2006

    Let’s see how well this article stands up 6 years from now…

    President Bush is pushing us to conserve oil by seeking alternative fuels, even going so far as to propose stopping the pumping of oil into the Strategic Oil Reserves (a tiny drop of oil, compared to our daily use). Why? The oil reserves in Alaska’s fields have dwindled 75 percent. Big Oil needs to renew it from somewhere, and with the eastern Gulf of Mexico off-limits, that means the Alaska refuge needs to be plundered — fast, and before anyone notices.

    It’s common knowledge that if the Refuge were to be opened up for drilling, that oil would be shipped to China and India instead of the United States, meaning it wouldn’t help us at all! In other words, what Bush is saying is to conserve oil so that more can be sold in the Far East to help the Big Oil companies bolster their pitifully sagging bottom lines!

    In a pathetic attempt to blame President Clinton for their problems, senators are claiming we wouldn’t be in the predicament we are today [SIX YEARS AGO] if it weren’t for him. This is ignoring the fact that both houses of the congress and the White House have been Republican controlled since 2001, and if it were passable up front of everyone, they’d have come up with a usable bill by now.

    This looks like a bad “Bait and Switch” con to me. If that money is sent to us, which is doubtful because they’ll probably strike it down later after drilling is authorized in Alaska, it should come out of the pockets of the oil companies, not our treasury

  • What can I say, if you spew enough nonsense, sooner or later I have to answer it too.

    Trust me, you’ve put enough total nonsense to test 10 men’s patience.

    So much illogical hearsay that even Spock would be tested.

  • Dr. Dreadful, I was told by you that citing articles I had written reduced my credibility. Does that also apply to Jet?

    Not necessarily. He’s not the one who wrote the above article. Your credibility was weakened because you cited opinions you had written as evidentiary support for arguments in other opinions you had written.

    In Jet’s case, he had written on the subject before: rather than type out the whole thing again, he simply referred you to those articles.

    It’s not the greatest debate tactic, I’ll grant you, but neither do I think it’s entirely unreasonable.

    And as you continue your explorations into the doings of the BC community, you will come to appreciate that Jet’s inability to follow through on an undertaking to remain absent from a discussion is as charming as Roger’s.

  • Igor

    #12-cannon: USA oil and gas consumers have benefited mightily from importing cheap foreign oil for decades. Cheap foreign oil has been a boon for the USA. Since we were the major consumer we set the prices, and we set them low.

    This is dumb:

    “Warren, I’d wager the only thing you, Glenn Contrarian, and I can agree on in this, is that we need off the Middle Eastern Teat. Period.”

    The ONLY profitable way for the USA to get off foreign oil is with alternate fuels. If we cutoff foreign oil and depended on our own supplies prices would soon double. Plus, we’d end up in WTO court for contract violation. Plus we don’t even have the machinery to do it.

    Your analysis is simply too shallow.

  • Igor

    #12-Cannonshop: the USA is already way over capacity in the oil refining business. Some are pulling up stakes and moving abroad.

    You really SHOULD read some of the underlying oil industry publications before reciting the rightist propaganda you often repeat.

    Try reading the API Journal. It’s also full of pro-oil propaganda, so that will make you feel comfortable, but if you dig around and read the slightly more technical articles you’ll learn something.

    Also, you’ll find out why modern synthetic oils are better for your engine, and worth the $6/quart that it costs.

  • Re: comment # 1, Jet, in response # 2 to Obama the Jobs Hypocrite, you said, “I hearby pledge that this will be the last comment on any of this fool’s articles, nor will I even bother to read them.” And I thought we were rid of you. Yet here you are again. Oh, well…

    Uh, Jet, in case you hadn’t noticed, the “price” of oil was never mentioned by me. So how does, except for Obama’s pulling out of Iraq and hurting US foreigh policy, does your first article apply?
    Same response to your second article.

    BTW Jet, in the first paragraph of your first article, you say, “George W. Bush was elected twice with the key help of the major oil companies’ contributions to his campaign. In other words he owed them big time.” Does that also mean that Obama owes Wall Street big time?

    BTW2, Dr. Dreadful, I was told by you that citing articles I had written reduced my credibility. Does that also apply to Jet?

    Re, comment # 2, Igor, you have repeatedly said that “oil companies are 60% owned by foreigners,” and that “… we, the US taxpayer, pay about $3billion to foreigners, every year.” OK, time to put up or shut up. Please provide link(s) to back up your statements. Or are they just your opinion?

    You also say, “…Exxon, Chevron and Valero have paid NO federal corporate taxes, largely because of the Foreign Tax Allowance….” Are these allowances available to ANY profitable, non-subsidized, non-bankrupt business?

    Re: comment # 4, Glenn, you say, “You want to see an energy-self-sufficient America, but you’re stuck with the Republican line that Thou Shalt Not Support Alternative Energy With Taxpayer Dollars…” You are correct. How many tax payer dollar subsidized/supported bankruptcies must you see before you turn the alternative energy idea (of which I and most conservatives are supporters) before the idea is turned over to profit-making private enterprize?

    You continue, “…but you’re more than willing to spend your taxpayer dollars supporting Big Oil.” OK, I offer you the same opportunity I offered to Igor. Offer a link(s) to support your assertion.

    You continue, “The simple fact that we’re still importing oil but still a net oil EXPORTING nation SHOULD speak volumes to you, Warren ….” Yes it does, but what does that fact have to foreign policy, besides crippling it? Did you even bother to read the second page of my article?

    You continue, “…and we’d STILL not be energy-independent.” Energy independence and energy self sufficiency are two different thing. Yet you continue to use the phrases/ideas interchangably.

    You continue, “Remember how all your boys on Fox called the Chevy Volt an ‘Obamamobile’? It won car of the year both here AND in Europe…and it is built in America, traveling on American roads using electricity made in America, so WHY do conservatives hate it? Because Obama likes it. That’s all the ‘reason’ y’all need.” Two comments: (1) I guess the car of the year awards are the reason for brisk sales, the temporary closing of the Volt production plant, and the need for the subsidy. (2) As usual, liberals like you are just too blind to see. We “hate” it because there is no market for it, yet we are forced to support it with taxpayer dollars. BTW, Bob Lutz, former GM head, said it is a well made car. BTW2, the Volt is powered mostly by coal, not oil.

    Re: comment # 5, Igor, the irony of your comment has me LOL. You say, “…(rather than homegrown sun energy)….” What are we supposed to do for energy while we wait for even one economically viable sun energy company? The world will not stop while we wait.

    You also say, “If we keep exporting our wealth (like the oil deals) and keep dependent on imported energy ….” In the face of Obama’s oil policy, I find your statement most humorous.

    Re: comments # 8 and #9, Glenn, who said anything about price? Perhaps you got confused reading the two articles Jet offered.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Problem is, the way the oil market is set up, we will never – ever – get off the “Middle Eastern Teat” as long as we use oil. Otherwise, we’d be off it TODAY since we’re now an oil-exporting nation.

    So that’s the problem with y’all’s war on alternative energy and continual protection of Big Oil – y’all don’t realize that they are NOT “American” companies anymore. They’re multinational and owe allegiance to no one other than their stockholders. They could care less what America thinks about the “Middle Eastern Teat”.

    But they pay off politicians to keep beating that “drill-baby-drill” drum that keeps the Republican party marching to the Big Oil tune.

  • Cannonshop

    Funny enough, we just had a fire in Blaine not two months ago, and gas prices went up fifty cents right after.

    The fire, of course, was at the REFINERY complex.

    y’know, where that oil’s processed into fuel.

    We used to have a lot more of them than we do now, and there was this pesky “Efficiency of Scale” we used to have, where gas formulas were the same from coast-to-coast. EPA changed that, of course, so now the gasoline you buy in, say, Indiana or Massachussetts isn’t the same formulation as you buy in Washington State, or Washington D.C.

    Drilling probably won’t help much, not without expanding refinery space to handle the supply.

    Not locally, anyhow.

    last month, Boeing’s internal propoganda rag ran a story about “biofuel” being used in commercial aviation, apparently they’ve worked out quite a bit of the “Let’s grow gas-producing plankton/bacteria in big tanks, refine it, and burn it as fuel”.

    Seems like a decent enough idea to me, probably cheaper than trying to make Solar Panels here, cheaper than they’re made in China, where the rare earths needed can be gotten for less expense since they don’t lock off huge tracts of mineral-rich land the way we do (including Rare Earths necessary for Solar power).

    Warren, I’d wager the only thing you, Glenn Contrarian, and I can agree on in this, is that we need off the Middle Eastern Teat. Period.

    An Energy independent United States with a working industrial base could tell the tyrants in the third world to go engage in self-sodomy because we don’t need them anymore…which would be a very, very, good thing in my opinion.

  • It also appears that way on our home page… or should I say his home page.

  • Is there a really good reason why the Warren’ author Icon has changed to the BC logo? Is this an official endorsement of his views by this website?

    The pump prices in Ohio have fallen 30 cents in two weeks. Why aren’t you blaming Hussein Warren, Hmmmmmm?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And here’s a really good graph showing the slowly-rising supply of oil as compared to the wildly-fluctuating price of oil.

    “Drill-baby-drill” is a fantasy, Baronius, a political tool that most Republicans swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    History shows that increased drilling somehow doesn’t affect prices much at all. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2009 report, “Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf” analyzed the difference between full offshore drilling and restriction to offshore drilling. With unrestricted drilling, in 2020, there is no impact on gasoline prices. In 2030, US gasoline prices would be three cents a gallon lower.

    Three cents a gallon lower – whoop-de-doo!

    And here’s a story with a list of the Republican party’s absurd claims about the Obama administration’s energy policy…and a list of the reality of the said energy policy.

  • Baronius

    There’s a lot on the first page of this article that makes sense. I’m not sure about your analysis of a world with more US oil, though. An increase in US oil production isn’t going to stop the Middle East from producing oil for the world market, so it’s still going to be an important region. And it’s not so much that US costs for gasoline, plastic, etc., would decline, as world costs would. But that’s not a bad thing.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Another misconception that Warren has is that our “Big Oil” companies are American. They’re not. They’re multinational, and they owe allegiance to no nation – only themselves.

  • Igor

    If we keep exporting our wealth (like the oil deals) and keep dependent on imported energy (rather than homegrown sun energy) pretty soon foreigners will be sending in commissars to tell us how to run our businesses, cities and states.

    And it’ll all be done by good ol’ american capitalists, selling out the country for Big Money, in their pockets not yours.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    (1) You want to see an energy-self-sufficient America, but you’re stuck with the Republican line that Thou Shalt Not Support Alternative Energy With Taxpayer Dollars…but you’re more than willing to spend your taxpayer dollars supporting Big Oil.

    (2) The simple fact that we’re still importing oil but still a net oil EXPORTING nation SHOULD speak volumes to you, Warren – the way the oil market is set up, we could have an oil rig in every back yard and every acre in every national park in America…and we’d STILL not be energy-independent. The market is simply not set up that way.

    But of course Fox News would never tell you that.

    (3) Remember how all your boys on Fox called the Chevy Volt an ‘Obamamobile’? It won car of the year both here AND in Europe…and it is built in America, traveling on American roads using electricity made in America, so WHY do conservatives hate it? Because Obama likes it. That’s all the ‘reason’ y’all need.

  • Kyle Hussein Hunter

    Jet the 2nd paragraph of your 2nd link says volumes if Warren goes after Obama when he releasess the strategic oil reserves later this year, or talks about alternate fuels.

    Let’s see if he can take it as well as he gives it out!

  • Igor

    The oil market is an international free market. There is NO way to sequester US oil to go to US consumers. And the oil companies wouldn’t do it if they could.

    The last few years Exxon, Chevron and Valero have paid NO federal corporate taxes, largely because of the Foreign Tax Allowance which allows them to take foreign taxes as direct tax credits (much better than mere deductions).

    Oil companies get about $5billion in direct subsidies every year, and since oil companies are 60% owned by foreigners, that means we, the US taxpayer, pay about $3billion to foreigners, every year, for nothing.

    Bring that money home. Convert to home-grown energy like wind and solar power.

  • You might find this of interest as a reference point.
    You might find this too of interest as a reference point.

    But somehow I doubt it.