(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Give credit where credit is due
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 3:57:21 PM (updated 3/8/2011 3:57:41 PM)
|
I wish the numbers were better, but figures do not lie. Sorry if the formatting is off, but you can figure it out. Very interesting.
2008 today change
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
$1.83 $3.41 86.3%
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) $43.48
$99.02 127.7%
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) $38.74
$91.38 135.9%
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
$853.25 $1,369.50 60.5%
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
$3.56 $6.33
78.1%
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
$9.66 $13.75 42.3%
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob
$13.37 $35.39 164.7%
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 7.6%
9.4% 23.7%
Unemployment rate, blacks
12.6% 15.8%
25.4%
Number of unemployed
11,616,000 14,485,000 24.7%
Number of fed. employees, ex. military 2,779,000
2,840,000 2.2%
Real median household income $50,112 $49,777
-0.7%
Number of food stamp recipients 31,983,716 43,200,878
35.1%
Number of unemployment benefit recipients 7,526,598
9,193,838 22.2%
Number of long-term unemployed
2,600,000 6,400,000 146.2%
&
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 4:03:17 PM
|
I am going to help the share price of Bacardi when I get out of work.....
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 4:48:15 PM
|
Sounds good.
What I find most interesting is when Bush was in office and oil went up, you heard all the crys that it was because Bush was trying to help the oil companies and Chaney used to be CEO of Haliburton. Now that oil is high, and yes part of it is world turmoil, but most of it is the weak dollar caused by the high deficits and what the treasury is doing to devalue the dollar to keep interest rates low ... but a HUGE part is Obama refusing to expand domestic drilling, restricting off shore, not adobting and energy policy that includes natural gas, etc.
But how come we do not hear the liberals screaming and yelling now about the price of oil?
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 8:56:01 PM
|
Even if Obama authorized offshore drilling tomorrow, it wouldn't do anything about the price of oil today. Everything I'm reading leads me to believe that it is speculation in the oil market that is driving the prices up, not anything the Administration is or is not doing. Libya only provides 2% of the world's oil and almost none to the US. Our big supplier is Saudi.
This is just a cycle -- notice that prices are not high because of a shortage. Why make a long term commitment to a short term problem?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 9:07:21 PM
|
Tell me something I do not know ... but the facts are, every day we wait the more we are dependent on foreign oil and the more dollars we are exporting. that is the excuse you always here for not drilling more ... it won't help today. But in 5 years we will be saying the same thing and if it started today it would make a difference.
Of course "part" of the problem today is fear in the market. But turning our backs and doing nothing ... does not help either.
|
I explained the oil markets to you one other time ... i would be happy to again. Availability has nothing to do with the price ... but value of the US dollar, economic trends, amount imported, etc drive the price.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Actually our top three
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 9:42:16 PM
|
suppliers in order are Canada, Mexico and then Saudi.............
|
| Name: |
au67
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Actually our top three
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2011 10:03:20 PM
|
Could someone on this board tell me exactly who we are saving our oil reserves for and if so, how were they selected??
|
I do not understand the point you are making?? Last time I checked, canada and Mexico are also foreign countries. An import is an import. We are still exporting dollars and not creating american jobs.
|
I do realize with our weak control of borders, it does seem like Canada and Mexico are part of the US, but last I checked they are foreign countries. If it has changed, let us all know so we do not call the a foreign country again.
|
In my mind the only argument you are making is for the exploration of alternative sources of energy, not drilling oil wells. That is the only thing that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Our oil reserves are supposed to be for actual shortages of oil, not just high prices.
Yes, in the short term this will impact our "recovery" , but in the long term, it is just a blip on the screen. The calls for drilling is just political opportunism.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW.............
|
|
Date:
|
3/9/2011 11:18:51 AM
|
Easy there.............I should have referenced Hound on my reply......she stated that "our big supply is Saudi", which is not true. I give credit to whomever for getting us away from ME oil as much as we can by going to neighbors C and M. However to your larger point we continue to buy too much from outside our borders...........I totally support drill here, drill now. There is NO reason for the Democrat position on no more drilling of our reserves except to cravenly cave to the kooks in their party that cares not for the economic well being of the US. The D's position on this is not a principled one, but merely a need to cling to power by whatever means posible. The "10 year argument" is a stale one, but the D's must use it til they get a new one!
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW.............
|
|
Date:
|
3/9/2011 3:41:21 PM
|
Oh, come now Rude, you can do better than that.
The only ones who will benefit by our allowing offshore drilling is the oil companies. While I am grateful that the oil prices are driving my oil stock values through the roof, I'm not in favor of oil company higher profits.
Do you think it will guarentee us more favorable oil prices? NO, it won't. Not in the short term, nor in the long term. The only way that would happen is for the US to take control of the oil industry or regulate the heck out of it.
It's just political opportunism.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
how about this ... please help us understand
|
|
Date:
|
3/9/2011 7:43:32 PM (updated 3/9/2011 7:47:29 PM)
|
If you feel that more drilling domesticly will only help the oil companies (I am not sure I agree with that), but lets say for arguement that is true ... don't you think it is a good thing that we are helping a US company that pays US taxes? Don't you think it will help the US by creating more US jobs, plus all the businesses that support the oil industries that will grow, the communities, the states? And lastly, don't you agree that it helps our balance of trade by not sending more and more dollars out of the US.
So I gave you that it may help the oil companies ... but I am not sure why that is a bad thing when it has so many pluses to the US economy. I never get the liberal point of view that profits are a bad thing when it helps economies and people gain employment? Isn't that better for society than worry a corporation is going to make more money.
And oild companies, as a percent of revenue, make far less than many companies, including most technology companies. Why are you not complaining about the money Apple is making and the margins they have????
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
how about this ... please help us understand
|
|
Date:
|
3/9/2011 9:15:19 PM
|
First of all, I don't buy the premise that the oil companies are "US companies". They are really multi-national conglomerates. So while they may pay US taxes, they have no loyalty to the US. They're not looking out for our interests. If the US went bankrupt tomorrow, the oil companies would not go with us.
Where you and I really differ is that "jobs" doesn't drive everything for me. Yes, it's great if jobs are created, but not at the expense of our environment. Now, I already know you are covering your ears and shouting La-la-la, I can't hear you....
I"m not a tree hugger, but I'm not willing to sacrifice our natural resources because we'll get a temporary economic hit off it. If we don't want to send our money overseas on foreign oil, then we better start getting serious about energy alternatives.
I'm really disappointed that Obama hasn't turned out to be the kind of leader that can be truthful with the American public and yet inspire people and companies towards a new vision.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
hound.........Wow,
|
|
Date:
|
3/9/2011 9:46:38 PM
|
the lucudity of that retort was breathtaking on so many levels that I'm gonna assume you are just bored and wanted to play devils advocate............cause as one egret said to another.....that cow patty has so much goodie in it I don't know where to start!
Only oil companies benefits from yada yada.......... really?! No bennies to share holders (like you stated that your portfolio went up lately), to gov'ts in greater taxes, to job creation in the whole industry, to the mutiplier effects in the many communities........yada,yada,yada??
And that just addresses the price issue............no bennie to the US from a Nat'l security stand point for increased availability
Your "10 year " argument has lost it's juice cause if it held any water or logic then the Alaskan pipeline would never have been built, or for that matter the second oil well would never have been drilled after the fist one back in the 19th century.
Let's face it.........assuming you were awake and serious.........you believe like your Dem friends, you don't want any new domestic sources developed, you would like to see the price go up dramatically and you do want more gov't controls and regulations, and you were probably for increased nuclear power developemnt until recently when the industry has made a strong push to redevelope that option.
Lest you forget, the current Interior Sec said back in 2008 that"he was opposed to opening up off shore areas to new oil and gas drilling even if the price per gal hit $10"..............And the Energy Sec who wants to shut down our own (US) oil and gas supplies, called for gas to cost $8 per gal to push it up to European levels.
Sorry, you may be a smart lady, but I'll take some of the opinions about our continuing need for more domestic develpment of oil and gas from industry veterans who say even if alternative fuels can be made economic and feasible we will continue to need new supplies well into the future.
|
I am surprised and not surprised by your answer. 1st, I am not sure you know what a conglomerate is ... just so you know it is a combination of two or more corporations engaged in entirely different businesses together into one corporate structure.
2nd, just because a corporation has multinational interests does not make them not a US company. Almost every major corporation has multinational interests.
3rd, we all love the environment ... but whether the oil comes from the US or elsewhere, it is still oil. I do not agree with the environmentalist views when before cars existed there was hype about global warming ... and a new ice age. This was discussed in a previous post not long ago.
Lastly, are you one of the 262 people that bought the Chevy Volt? There is obviously not the interest or the worry about getting off oil ... even from the tree huggers. And Obama is even paying people to buy the car ... and still it is not selling. People do not want all electric vehicles ... hybrids yes ... but not completely electric.
It is sad you would rather see people stay unemployed and the economy struggle and poor people not being able to afford gas, and more dollars being exported that may throw the economy back in recession ... and that is all ok with you. That is harsh and you should be ashamed of yourself to be so selfish and say you don't have to worry about it since you are financially secure, while others have to make decisions to buy gas to get to their job or buy food.
What kind of liberal are you. WOW !!!
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW and Rude
|
|
Date:
|
3/10/2011 9:09:13 AM
|
I understand only too well the difference between conglomerates and mulit-national companies.
You realize, of course, that US gas prices are the biggest bargain in the world outside of the Middle East?
I find it rich that you are going after me about poor people. Both of you, who would take away the benefits of the poorest and most disenfranchised people in the country, including children by cutting their head start programs.
Oil jobs and industry support are not the only jobs in the world. In fact, I seriously question just how many jobs will be generated by offshore drilling in the US. If we seriously pursue alternative energy sources, and just don't pay it lip service, there will be jobs generated in those industries. And support industries and support jobs will grow up around them.
No, I don't have a Chevy Volt. I don't think Chevy has done a particularly good job marketing the car. Which tells me that Chevy doesn't really want the Volt to sell.
If they don't take it seriously, then why should buyers? And the few commercials out there say that it will raise your electric bill $1.50 day day, but doesn't talk about your gas savings in a year. But, I think you can say that the hybrid cars have been very successful. So maybe we need to phase in the new technologies and not expect people to immediately embrace new technologies.
I'm not convinced that this is time to pursue drilling in the US for a temporary situation. There may be another time when it becomes critical to our national security to do so, but it's not now.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW and Rude
|
|
Date:
|
3/10/2011 10:34:27 AM
|
jobs are jobs and what will create them the quickest is what we should pursue. So you would rather sit back and do nothing while people need jobs.
Don't tell me how I feel about the disadvantaged ... I probably donate more of my time and income to helping others than you ever thought of doing. The difference is that I want to help people that want to help themselves and not just provide handouts that keep people down.
So yes ... I want jobs created and as fast as possible. that helps people and helps the economy. Does it someone make you a better person to say you only want to create jobs if it is the type of job YOU think is best. I think that is selfish and irrogant.
Oil jobs are great jobs, help the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help communities, help supporting businesses.
So you would rather ignor all that and wait for some magic new energy source. I take it you have a wind mill in your front yard and solar panels on your roof. I know you don't drive an electric car or even a hybrid.
As for the Volt, I guess the $1.5 billion GM spent to develop it was not a commitment. The advertised it a lot .... people do not want it. They have admitted it is a huge disappointment.
And if you knew what a coglomerate was ... why did you call an oil company that. Nice effort to cover up your ignorance.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WW and Rude
|
|
Date:
|
3/10/2011 5:08:49 PM
|
I think that you've made it quite clear who the arrogant one is. (Too bad you can't spell it).
You have no idea how much time or money I have given to charitable causes, so I don't think you have anything on me. I have a proven tract record of helping people, specifically minorities, with their careers and getting them into school, so before you get so sanctimonious you better know what you are talking about. Get your head out of your posterior.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
