Do you think America has a chance? | Page 4 | EVERYTHING ELSE OFF TOPIC | Forum

" Politicians have proven time and time again that they are not effective economists and therefore should act as if they are."
lol exactly how many people did enron help.

I am sorry if I cannot find it in me to blame this president for fifty years of pandering to corporate interests. the real solution could be to revoke the incorporation charters to their original form. That would be an incorporated company created for each and every individual project.
. finish building the road and the corporation is dissolved. they started that way.
Created for the sole purpose of finishing one project.

Corporations already run the USA. to give more power to them will not help. do you think they will suddenly grow a conscience and employ american workers. save the planet and the jobs,
I can see no evidence for that.
None.
zippo.
I can see plenty of corporations sitting , right at the moment, on trillions they are waiting to invest again when they are less fearful they might get charged if they pollute lets say , the gulf of mexico.
I can see that they pulled their money out right when the commie pinko socialist dictator won the election and they intend to keep it that way till they are guaranteed free business right over your house home and hearth and possibly life if you are unlucky enough to be one of those folk that bring us our daily bread.

the cronyism that put lemans at the top was not Obama's . He merely attempted prevented all of you with a pension plan or retirement plan form getting reamed and loosing it all.
Not a bad thing to try, even if I as one without any "investments" get nothing in return.
I would have loved to see them all fail. but lol there would be NO business going in the USA today. We are on the edge of a cliff so stop pushing it over.
yes the bugger you can grab hold of may not be the nicest person. do you refuse the hand and drop.
Lets say O gets out. who next. seems many just want change change change. in their pockets. Why after so many years is now the time to suddenly realise the hippies were right. that globalising everything is a problem. that the environment is an issue Why Now after watching so many crap presidents who really did try for nothing.

Is he really any worse or deserving of all the straight-back opposition he has had.
when have we been so opposed before. How many were opposed when the stock market and their savings were being saved from being empty glasses instead of half full..
Not mine .someone elses.
TAx the rich and pay the countries debt the country got to get the Rich richer. Heck try concentrating on GW and dick. they have millions they managed to get from being in power. take it and give it to the country.
Nah. better scream at Obama because we all created a country and corporate mon/bster we cannot control because they (thanks to the GOP judges) have more voice and power than the people and the government and the president put together.

Last thing I want is more power to the private sector. You and me are not that sector. Halliberton is.

shame on those institutions for bringing us the week end and those pesky holidays.
was it the union that made the rubbish decision to build a SUV over a all electric car?

I cannot see how your opinion of freemarket capitalists like Haliburton is so relevant to the fact that they are private companies. in the hands of share holders. not the GOV and they are typical of big corporations.
they are just as all are. they fix politics as best they can to look good. You seem to want to be able to pick and choose the legitimacy of a corporation. They are incorporated companies beholden to no one but the board and share holders.
Dick and GW reamed the country on their behalf with a few others. just look at how Haliburton were so much part of the "BP" spill and yet they got no flack, no billion dollar payout from them.

I agree they are scum. but so is Exon, Chevron and all the others that pollute huge swaths of the rain forest to make their dosh.

Haliburton is just the tip of the corporate iceberg. to pretend they are exceptional is not fair to the sterling efforts to make profit at all and any costs from so many.

want to stop them. regulate them.
now try telling me how regulations don't work.
after all the private corporate folk would love to hear that. Unions like the auw made what was the dream of the USA. a job that paid well and treated w the workforce better than a slave. I won't knock them because they tried to bring health care to all. for years. yes they balked at being told they would have to drop it all so the Goppers could have their way, rightly so. it was not them that took away my health care, it was all those that screamed "Nobama" from day one.
show me where unions have trashed so many peoples health and jobs for short term political gain and I might agree.
but the corporations that truly run this country are just using this as yet another way to break the unions so they can make more profit in the future. and you my friend are serving us all up on a silver platter to those corporate interests.
Halliburton is a private capitalist company. no matter that it doesn't fit your view of the world. it is.

"He also fails to mention that the rich, not not only make the highest percentage income, but also pay most of the taxes."

Lol ever see the Warren Buffet interview. that one where he compares his tax rates with those of his secretary.

"WHY is Bernie Sanders forgetting to mention the decades of legislation and poor oversight that allowed the dishonest men to take over Wallstreet."
in defence of Bernie

"Sanders has also criticized Alan Greenspan. In June 2003, during a question-and-answer discussion with the then-Federal Reserve chairman, Sanders told Greenspan that he was concerned that Greenspan was "way out of touch" and "that you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations."[13] Senator Sanders has maintained and warned (in 1998) that investment banks and commercial banks should remain as two separate entities.[14]"

sems he did. but everyone screamed "crazy bernie" instead of listening.

"Why does Bernie Sanders think that after a lifetime of paying taxes on income and property that the government is somehow entitled to tax it again just because a person dies"
lol because they spent so much time NOT paying taxes. that is exactly the point. they get away with profits from Capital gains that would make us all ( except those that fit into the category of making loads in capital gains) feel like we won the lottery.
They can end up making many many times more than salary ( bonus were arranged to avoid taxes).

"It is a matter of historical fact that reducing the tax rate increases federal revenue.":
we went to war with GW Tax breaks were introduced. federal revenue went down. Complete misinformation there man.
indeed every GOP congress has increased the national deficit.Not so for the Dems or that Billy that I am no fan of.

Is a sweat shop in Indonesia honest money. "Nike"?

just some more thoughts.

Cheers Grant for the link. It will come in handy in the future when I have to do this again elsewhere;)

I have studied the figures quite a bit previously and could not figure out how this was quite right.

Ries you're right it will have no effect on how I hit metal. metal truly is indifferent to politics.

PS Randy. those inspectors were appointed by who and when and for what reason. their unswerving desire to make things right in the oil industry?

Section 322
Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323
Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311
The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal” under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don’t really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC “exclusive authority” under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn’t in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to “enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation.” FERC is further required to “obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation” (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a “yea” vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an “aye” vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357
Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390
Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369
Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies."

All gw regs. I think you can see where I might go with this

"Regulations permit oil and gas industry to regulate itself. The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service—the agency responsible for managing oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and collecting royalties from companies—decided in 2005 that oil companies, rather than the government, were in the best position to determining their operations’ environmental impacts. This meant that there was no longer any need for an environmental impact analysis for deepwater drilling, though an earlier draft stated that such drilling experience was limited. In fact, MMS “repeatedly ignored warnings from government scientists about environmental risks in its push to approve energy exploration activities quickly, according to numerous documents and interviews.” And an interior general analysis even found that between 2005 and 2007 MMS officials let the oil industry to fill out their own inspection reports."

notice the dates I think we can blame one side because it has been going the same way for years , and always the companies the multinational corperations win. we loose.
and gov gets detractors . somehow. MMA is a bad agency one created that way for a reason by some without reason.