# News Huge Energy Bill - Has House Approval

1. Jul 28, 2005

### SOS2008

I couldn't find the earlier thread on this topic... If I recall, members were pleased to see nuclear energy back on the horizon. But, what about this bill over all?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8739555/

As asked before, why are American tax payers subsidizing the oil industry, which is making record profits? How can such absurdity be passed...well in the house...where they passed the bill about burning the flag--figures I guess.

Here's what I will want to know in 2006 (so far):

1) Which members of congress displayed purple-inked fingers during Dubya's State of the Union address
2) Which members of congress were involved in the Terri Schiavo incident
3) Which members of congress voted against stem cell research
4) Which members of congress are voting for this energy bill

Etc. Let's start taking names on this kind of stuff and remember it well--and this goes for representatives of both parties. :yuck:

2. Jul 28, 2005

### Pengwuino

... what does any (except #4) of those things have to do with energy policy.... or is this one of those series of progression things.

And how does the government subsidize the oil industry? I hear that a lot but no ones ever explained it to me.

3. Jul 28, 2005

### pattylou

The energy bill has lots and lots of money going to the energy companies that use "traditional energy." Take the link! It comes from your pocket!

What those have to do with energy policy? Little, but that isn't why they are linked. They are linked because they are all offensive to the "America" I was taught that I live in. The one where people have personal liberties, and education and dreams are funded, and we are a world leader! --- not backwards thinking stuck-in-the-mud religious "army of god" thinking that promotes preemptive invasions of sovereign countries as a means of doing daily business! And why?

What the hell. Answer : For a stable democracy in an *oil rich* country that will now be *friendly* to the US because we have set it up!

There were no weapons. Saddam was not linked to 9/11. We had no reason to go there.

Why does it always come back to Iraq? You figure it out. I know the answer.

(and yes, I'm a little drunk. :tongue: )

4. Jul 28, 2005

### Pengwuino

Because thats all people think they know about? :) Think fahrenheit 9/11 got a little too much publicity :-/

5. Jul 28, 2005

### pattylou

I didn't see the movie, it looked like trash.

It's because the Iraq War embodies the agenda that the President stands for, that is manifest in every action he takes.

It's also because it represents his bald-faced lies to *you*.

6. Jul 28, 2005

### Pengwuino

So his entire agenda is to free people? I understand...

7. Jul 28, 2005

### Archon

Exactly! But only if they have oil, of course.

8. Jul 28, 2005

### pattylou

His agenda is "My way or the Highway." It's selfish and self-promoting. It has nothing to do with working with other people, and has nothing to do with respect. I am talking about every issue from his "I'll unite this country but be damned if I'm going to meet the democratic senators halfway on Bolton, Rice, etc" rhetoric to "I will never endorse stem cell research, ever, it's way better to throw those embryos out."

His agenda allows lies and deceptions to achieve an end of domination. It plays on religiosity, and zero reason. It is neither considered nor wise. It is self-serving.

This is *wrong.*

And if he wanted to "free people" he could have started in any *number* of countries, and he could have started with humanitarian aid instead of bombs. Take your blinders off.

His agenda has more to do with *killing* people and "screw the US into ireversible debt" than with "freeing people."

I don't understand anything he does. I am glad Saddam is not in power. He was unsavory. So was the Shah of Iran, so was the Ayatollah Khomeini, so have lots of middle eastern leaders been. I think you're old enough to remember us *backing* Saddam against the Ayatollah in the '80's? Saddam was our *hero* against unchecked religiosity in the middle east. And *now* we're the one with the religious leader.

It's goddamn scary. And I've had even more wine!

9. Jul 28, 2005

### Pengwuino

10. Jul 28, 2005

### Pengwuino

Well thats weird because democratic senators are almost unanimous in their rhetoric of "no bolton, no way, no compromise". Substitute bolton for social security, roberts, federal judges, etc and you have reality.

11. Jul 28, 2005

### pattylou

Actually, that isn't their rhetoric at all.

Their rhetoric is "Give us the goddamned documents, and we'll give you an up or down vote."

Period. Don't you read the news?

Incidentally, I haven't seen anythingout of DC but endorsement for Roberts. You're talking out of your ass.

(I'm officially drunk! LOL)

12. Jul 28, 2005

### pattylou

And ps, funny about the federal judges, I recall they passed several not too long ago.

Hunh.

I also recall a much tougher time for Clinton's nominees. Hunh again.

13. Jul 28, 2005

### pattylou

Hunh? You lost me here, bub. You drunk too?

We invaded Afghanistan with global support to find Al Qaeda. And then we stopped to go invade another country for no good reason. Sure, it could have been Saudia Arabia. But Iraq is weaker so Bush thought it would be a cakewalk. Hah!

'My way or the Highway" kicked in with Iraq. See? It always comes back to Iraq. And that's why.

14. Jul 28, 2005

### Archon

If this is adressed to me: I was being sarcastic in the sense that I don't believe Bush invaded Iraq solely for oil.

But you can't seriously argue that his agenda revolves around freeing all the people of the earth from evil dictators: there are so many examples of countries whose people are suffering as much as or more than the people of Iraq under Hussein. Has Bush invaded these countries? No. This is quite a discrepency if his policy is based on spreading freedom throughout the world.

Your "argument" here is appalling. We invaded Afghanistan because the country was harboring the terrorist organization responsible for the 9-11 attacks. This was done with the support of the rest of the world, and was justified (in my opinion, and in most other peoples' as well). Iraq is different (obviously): they didn't attack us, they weren't linked to the 9-11 attacks, and they didn't really have WMDs. This begs the question: why Iraq, rather than some other country with an even more oppressive regime? The answer seems to be the Bush's goals are not as noble as you believe.

15. Jul 28, 2005

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
According to the article, the bill includes $2.7 billion in tax breaks that will go to the oil and gas (natural gas, presumably, but the article doesn't say) industries. I don't know if they currently receive subsidies of this kind. Then again, the article also says that there is included in the bill$14.5 billion in total tax breaks being paid out to energy companies. Since only 19% of these subsidies actually seem to be going toward fossil fuel, I'm not sure why SOS insists that this is just a subsidy for the oil industry.

16. Jul 28, 2005

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
I'm sure SOS was refering to Big Energy, in general.

Nearly two-thirds of the money does go to traditional energy companies. From the article :

17. Jul 29, 2005

### SOS2008

Please feel free to research more sources than this link--it's ALL over the news. You may recall that Bush's energy plan included assistance to oil companies to build more refineries, including a proposal to 'donate' old military bases (government land) for these purposes.

What do the other issues have to do with the energy bill? It shows a chain of unprofessional (purple-inked fingers, like it was high school graduation or something), unintelligent (stem cell research is scientific progress that would save lives), and right-wing radicalism (wasting time about burning the flag). This congress, particularly the house has hit another low with this energy bill.

Not to mention the usual Whitehouse thug tactics and scheduling votes in the middle of the night.

I hope all these things are brought up in 2006 elections. :grumpy:

Last edited: Jul 29, 2005
18. Jul 29, 2005

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Who is the money supposed to go to? Each provider has a regional monopoly within their territory. Are there really 'small' energy companies out there? The only companies with the means to innovate and develop new energy sources or expand existing non-fossil fuel sources are the big companies. I can understand complaining if this bill gives these companies no incentive to do anything but continue to burn (although in the case of the big utilities, all the ones around here primarily use hydroelectric power, complemented by the nuclear plants down in San Onofre, as far as I know), but don't simply complain because they're being given money.

Anyway, this article doesn't say much, and I doubt any other news service says much more. I'm just going to have to actually read the bill and then formulate an opinion. Until then, I may as well keep my mouth shut.

19. Jul 29, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

I'd also like a comparison between this and what has been done in the past. The energy industry is a government regulated monopoly and it has always been subsidized. How much, I don't know....

Regardless, if this bill does one thing - restart the US's nuclear program - it'll become the most environmentallly friendly and foreign-policy friendly energy policy in more than 20 years.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2005
20. Jul 29, 2005

### Informal Logic

Regardless of what has been done in the past (if it was wrong, two wrongs don't make a right), or that many people are pleased to see promotion of nuclear energy, one wonders why our representatives can't bargain to remove detrimental aspects of legislation. And in view of Bush's background and immense debt/obligation to the oil industry, how can one not feel wary of this bill?

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2005