Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Democrats Remove Energy Bill From Congressional Vote »

Posted by: bigurn 2 months ago

7.8

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 150

Propped: 55

Comments: 60

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Congress vowed to take action on energy problems. Today, the Democrat leadership has removed the vote on energy from the schedule.

Read Full Story at thehill.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 60

0%
bigurn2 months ago

FTA: "Right now, our strategy on gas prices is 'Drive small cars and wait for the wind,' " said a Democratic aide.
This is a tremendous failure to lead. There are real people getting hurt by this inaction; the fact that Republicans will debate drilling for oil is no excuse for inaction. Incredible.
Reply
20 Replies
- 0%
  pc252 months ago
  
  the only wind that is blowing is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    jimdoze2 months ago
    
    The wind that comes from the Democrat side of the aisle is that which is broken... and laden with methane.
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      tanglang2 months ago
      
      Tis a foul wind we could all do without.
      Reply
    - 0%
      Wolfie20072 months ago
      
      It's good they can't smoke in there because if some struck a match it could blow up the capitol building. lol
      Reply
- 0%
  libsRfunny2 months ago
  
  Are you kidding? They want gas prices as sky high as possible. If they go down, it will take away bitterness toward the Bush administration, and all they can run on is being anti-Bush.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    bigurn2 months ago
    
    Y'know Libs, I think you're right. As long as Democrats can play the "blame Bush" game, their odds in the fall get better and better.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      libsRfunny2 months ago
      
      "Y'know Libs, I think you're right. As long as Democrats can play the 'blame Bush' game, their odds in the fall get better and better."
      Sadly, it's true. If the economy picks up, gas and food prices go down and the "housing non-crisis" levels out, the Dems would be in trouble. They already stuck their feet in their mouths by declaring Iraq lost only to be proven wrong a year later.
      Of course, they have the lowest approval and highest poor performance ratings of any Congress during the history of the Rasmussen Poll, but as long as they can beat their anti-Bush drum, they seem to get away with it.
      Reply
  - 0%
    cptnkrk2 months ago
    
    I would think this would be headline news across the Country. But I am looking and finding nothing even in some of the more conservative papers.
    Reply
- 0%
  libsRfunny2 months ago
  
  "'Right now, our strategy on gas prices is "Drive small cars and wait for the wind," said a Democratic aide.'"
  In other words: Screw America!
  Reply
- 0%
  Klarissa2 months ago
  
  she took it off of the table because they did'nt want to vote on drilling
  Reply
- 0%
  Beau78902 months ago
  
  For all of you who support opening ANWR and more offshore sites to drilling, and who criticize Democrats delaying the passage of *an* energy bill, what's the deal with 176 Republicans voting against requiring "energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back? They want more leases, but they don't want to give up land they won't drill on? (Don't forget that the Dept. of Energy said in a report last year that it'd be the end of the 2020s before we saw any increased production if we opened the rest of the offshore sites.)
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 0%
    libsRfunny2 months ago
    
    "what's the deal with 176 Republicans voting against requiring 'energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back?'"
    Most if not all of those leased lands not being drilled have no oil. I see you swallowed yet another one of Obama's lies.
    Dems tabled the bill because Republicans had the votes to pass expanded domestic drilling.
    In the meantime, Pelosi called on Bush to release strategic oil reserves into the market. I find it interesting that on the one hand you have Democrats saying more oil won't do squat to lower prices and block drilling, yet on the other hand they call on the President to release strategic reserves.
    Either more oil helps or it doesn't. Looks like the Dems are caught in yet another hypocritical lie.
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      Beau78902 months ago
      
      No, actually I just read the article, which states that 176 Republicans voted against requiring energy companies to give back leased lands not being drilled.
      But if those leased lands not being drilled have no oil, then what's the problem with giving them back?
      The strategic reserves are intended to be a short-term solution. Opening offshore areas to drilling will produce SLIGHTLY more oil IN 28 YEARS, according to a 2007 report by the Dept. of Energy:
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/o...
      Do you doubt the Bush administration's Department of Energy?
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 0%
        tiredofwhiners2 months ago
        
        Try to understand this: The leased lands have potential but unproven oil. The cost of exploration and drilling for unknown amounts of oil in scattered smaller lands vs. potential rewards is much higher than for drilling offshore or ANWR. The reserves there look very promising. So you have a certain limit to investment money and you want to look and drill in the best places. They should leave the leases alone and allow the oil companies to decide when or if develop them. Do you think the oil companies that paid for these leases would just sit there if they thought there was a good potential to make a profit? Assuming they have the resources to develop them. Sometimes you have to put things aside for the future. I had an Aunt who owned some capped gas wells in NM. The govt. made her leave them capped because of regs./excess production then. Probably they weren't tied into a developed pipeline yet. So not all is as simple as some would have you believe but common sense clears it up.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78902 months ago
        
        1) You didn't answer why the energy companies should have a problem with giving back their untapped, not potentially profitable lands. Maybe if they put some of their lobbying money into developing them, it wouldn't affect their bottom line.
        2) Try to understand this: The Department of Energy report--if you'd read the link I gave you--was written by people who know a hell of a lot more about the energy industry than you or I. The report tells you we would not see increased oil production until close to 2030.
        On the other hand, opening the reserves would bring immediate relief, since many feel that is necessary.
        I don't know how to make it clearer to you.
        
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        tiredofwhiners2 months ago
        
        The post below (not this one) is a bit of a repeat because the first one didn't go on (until I entered the 2nd one - sorry).
        I don't know who would be more of an expert as to the yes or no decision to explore or not. It is the oil companies who hold those leases!! They have the seismic data and analyses much of it proprietary and known only by them. I trust the Dept. of Energy only so much. If the feds want to take back the leases OK whatever. I don't know why they want them back now. Seems like a change of contract after the fact. 2030 or whatever lets get going!!! (2030 isn't a number I trust). I don't see why we want to restrict private money developing our resources on leases they paid for. I trust most of all those who are spending the money (the oil exploration/development ccompanies). And sure, open the strategic reserves, I'm all for it. Is there anything left to disagree on?
        Sorry, I am very busy and have a computer problem, very slow. I can't read all the links now.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78902 months ago
        
        There are two separate issues here.
        The oil companies hold leases on drillable land that they are not using. As you say, these are not potentially profitable--if that's the case, I don't see the problem with passing a bill saying that if these lands are not utilized, then the oil companies should give them up.
        On the other hand, part of the outer continental shelf is currently off limits to drilling, and the oil companies want to be able to lease them. This drilling is what was addressed in the DoE analysis saying that we wouldn't see increased production until 2030. That's Bush's Dept. of Energy--what motive other than truth would they have for publishing such an report?
        The leases
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        buckncindykill2 months ago
        
        The govt's estimates are always extremely conservative. I bet you can at least cut that estimate in half.
        As for the leases; The gov't wants the companies to just give up the leases. Leases they have paid for. Why not exchange offshore leases that will produce oil, for onshore leases that don't?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78901 month, 4 weeks ago
        
        The DoE report also said that even with increased oil production, there'd be no effect on the cost of oil, since it's traded on the world market.
        And you must agree that not directing more money toward developing sustainable energy sources than toward getting more oil in twenty years would be an equally effective, and more lasting solution. Had we started developing more advanced and efficient power sources when (never mind what else you think of him) Jimmy Carter said we needed to, we'd already be far less dependent on oil.
        Let's not wait another 30 years, then panic.
        About the leases, why not let them give the undeveloped land up if anyone else wants to drill? Someone who wanted to develop it now could buy out the lease.
        Reply
      - 0%
        tiredofwhiners2 months ago
        
        Try to understand economics and business. If the leased lands are so great then the oil companies would be exploring them now. That costs money which is a limited resource. They would obviously prefer to explore where they have more positive and larger possibilities. That would be offshore and in ANWR where it is known that the likelyhood of large significant reserves will be found. Dems are talking about taxing big oil more so they have to be more wary about what they do with their development money. No disappointments wanted such as on the current leased lands. 8 years (I've heard in some cases) or 28 years, let oil cos. explore and DRILL!! It's their money and if it isn't worth it they will lose their own money on the deal. Above all we need to supply our own selves with oil to stop the flow of $$$ to foreign countries.
        Reply
0%
pc252 months ago

A failure to lead indeed.......the Republicans will seize upon this and drive it home spelling trouble for them in the November elections.........one has to begin to wonder how clueless is Obama...........
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  jimdoze2 months ago
  
  Perhaps the Dems in congress are waiting for Obama to formulate his energy policy first? It seems to me that Obama, as a card carrying member, is boxed in by his own liberal elite constituency... a constituency that views both hydrocarbon and nuclear fission energy production as deals with the worst kind of devils. These folks watch with a certain amount of glee as the energy markets concomitant with their hold on legislative and judicial obstacles to industrial scale domestic energy development slowly, but ever so surely, strangle the U.S. economy.
  Joe Biden on Meet the Press: "High oil prices are a gift to the American people."
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    nostalgia2 months ago
    
    Obama has an energy policy and it doesn't address the immediate problem
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      libsRfunny2 months ago
      
      I don't know how anyone possibly could trust Obama to do as he says when he so willfully and wantonly changes his word at the drop of a hat.
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        capecoralM2 months ago
        
        Obama's policy includes the Cap and Trade policy: Implementation of Lieberman-Warner would only worsen these trends. The Heritage Foundation released a study this month estimating that the impact of Lieberman-Warner on the U.S. economy would be a cumulative loss in gross domestic product of at least $1.7 trillion. And this is on top of what the Congressional Budget Office shows would be a $1.21 trillion increase in taxes between 2009 and 2018.
        This will drive business out of the U.S. Will raise the cost of everything. The no drilling crowd keeps saying drilling will not bring energy online for 28 years. That is a position that says why start on anything as it will take time. Why go to school since you won't get into college for 18 years. Why try to develop alternative energy sources since they will not make a difference for another 20 years. In the meantime we pay for the inaction of the Democrat(ic) led house and congress.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        nostalgia2 months ago
        
        That bill used to be the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act
        We'll get that piece of garbage rammed down our throats regardless of who is elected
        Reply
0%
jimdoze2 months ago

'Drive small cars and wait for the wind'
That about covers the Democrat energy policy. Oh, I forgot one other plank in the policy... scream about oil companies making profits... and surely there will be another plank, "wear sweaters"!
It is really getting tiresome!

Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  pc252 months ago
  
  that's it memories of Jimmy Carter by the White House fireplace, dressed in a cardigan and scarf, this country cannot afford a repeat of such reassuring leadership
  Reply
0%
aniokly2 months ago

I just heard this discussed on T V. It is outrageous. This is not funny, and if the Democrats think it is some kind of game they are wrong. 62% of Americans want to drill, and drill now for an increased supply of oil. These are Democrats, and Republicans. It seem all those tree huggers, and caribou coddlers have a price, and it is $7. a gallon for gas. Democrats think the November election hinges on the Economy, Huh uh. It is domestic drilling, Stupid. And Democrats have no clue.
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  saintetienne2 months ago
  
  Well I, for one, stand in solidarity with the Democrats on this one. I'm stating right here and right now that I am totally AGAINST drilling Obama's head in search of brains.
  It'll not only cost taxpayers dearly, but the sheer disappointment it will wreak when it is revealed that all along there just hasn't been any.... well it'll just be too much for the masses of duped, naive people to bear. And in this soft economy, disappointment is the last thing people need to hear.
  Join me in 2008, won't you? NO DRILLING OBAMA'S HEAD FOR BRAINS.
  It's Change We Can All Believe In!
  Reply
- 0%
  Klarissa2 months ago
  
  CNN survey
  Do you agree with T. Boone Pickens that dependence on imported oil is killing the U.S. economy?
  Yes 92% 136666
  No 8% 11211
  Total Votes: 147877
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    nostalgia2 months ago
    
    T. Boone Pickens is pushing his own plan for energy independence. I've seen his ad on TV a number of times. He has also been on many of the news shows
    Maybe the public can get behind his plan and force Congress to do something
    http://www.pickensplan.com/
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      Wolfie20072 months ago
      
      Pickens is pushing wind and natural gas and it is seldom if ever mentioned that he is heavily invested in the natural gas industry. Just another flim flam man out to make a buck.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        capecoralM2 months ago
        
        Then of course you have a better plan right? The criminalization of the people who invest in this country by starting a business (that could turn into a large evil corporation)to employ people, or build them a home or a car or bring energy to the masses or whatever is killing this economy. The attitude that starting a business and investing for a profit is bad is beyond comprehension. How is pushing wind and natural gas power bad? How the F*&^ is anything going to get done without private investment. Oh wait we should turn over 60% of our earnings to the Government and let them tell us what they are going to invest in. This should scare the S*(&^ out of every American.
        Reply
0%
abntv2 months ago

I am telling you all right now....Jimmy Carter is hiding in that building somewhere.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  Klarissa2 months ago
  
  He is pedaling his bike to provide power for his house.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    abntv2 months ago
    
    Someone needs to tell him he does not need to peddle his bike.. all he needs to do is burn the BS he shovels.
    Reply
0%
saintetienne2 months ago

Well this ought to move the approval numbers for Congress back into the double digits. Only problem is that it'll be the NEGATIVE double digits....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And the Libs go on and on about George Bush's falling numbers. Any low number Bush's approval rating can hit, the Democrats in Congress can hit lower!
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Klarissa2 months ago
  
  It hit a 9, I think
  Reply
0%
aniokly2 months ago

It would appear the President's approval rating in 19 points higher then our Congressional leaders right now. What a hoot.
Reply
catstevensComment removed: User banned.
0%
1-2-Oscar2 months ago

The game of politics has never been about "helping people." For both Democrat and Republican, it's about helping themselves.
And they do.
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  nostalgia2 months ago
  
  There was an interview yesterday on Fox News with Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
  She is in favor of drilling
  Landrieu said there is a group of 10 Senators - 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans - who are working to push a vote in the Senate that will allow more drilling and promote conservation
  She must be giving good old Harry heartburn
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    1-2-Oscar2 months ago
    
    Landrieu's support of "more drilling" is not motivated by her desire to see the American people released from the tyranny of oil, but instead is a consequence of her own desire to be re-elected.
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      nostalgia2 months ago
      
      Oscar
      That's probably true. Plus there is a large expansion going on at a refinery in LA. She wants to see more oil for that refinery and an increase in jobs in LA
      With a bipartisan group working on this, maybe they can push good old Harry into doing something constructive for a change
      Reply
    - 0%
      bigurn2 months ago
      
      Oscar, I didn't want to rain on Mary's parade, since I agree with this one action of hers. But you're right.
      Reply
    - 0%
      Wolfie20072 months ago
      
      Oscar
      That makes Mary "BabyPhat" Landrieu just a little bit brighter than the rest doesn't it? The others won't even say drill to get reelected. lol
      Reply
0%
Endoscopy2 months ago

And they wonder why the approval rating for Congress is at 12%. More of this stuff and they will be in single digits.
This and what they passed override Bushes veto had billions in earmarks. oink oink
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Wolfie20072 months ago
  
  Endo
  The approval rating for congress is 9%.
  Reply
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
- 0%
  abntv2 months ago
  
  Always glad to hear your two cents ranch
  Reply
0%
nostalgia2 months ago

The Democrats keep saying the oil companies hold leases on millions of acres for exploration
Destin Dome is included in those leases.
Several oil companies bought leases in Destin Dome
They spent millions on exploration and found a huge reserve of natural gas
When they submitted the plans for drilling they were told NO
When the Feds or states can deny drilling after companies spend millions on the leases and exploration is it any wonder they are hesitant to put more money into exploring in the leases?
Maybe it is time for each state legislature to take a position - will they allow drilling in the state or off their shores and will they allow refineries
If a state says NO then the citizens of those states should be assessed a surcharge on oil and gas consumption in the state
The surcharge could then be used to lower the cost of oil and gas in the states willing to allow drilling and construction of refineries

Reply
0%
aniokly2 months ago

Before Congress, or State legislatures will remove restrictions on Domestic Drilling most of them have to be replaced. They are so intimidated by the tree huggers they won't act. We are voting for the entire Congress in November. Call your Representative, ask them how they feel about Domestic drilling. If they give you a song, and dance, replace them.
Reply
0%
Wolfie20072 months ago

Well, the democrats think they are going to gain more seats in the house and senate as well as the Presidency. I think the republicans could do more to make sure that doesn't happen but will they?
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  cptnkrk2 months ago
  
  Looking at this article the Rep's are in the drivers seat. But they have been there before and chose to shrug and say, "nothing we can do" and head out.
  Wimps
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Klarissa2 months ago
    
    cp- you are right
    
    Reply
0%
cptnkrk2 months ago

Symbolism over substance:
FTA: "Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar â;; their "use it or lose it bill" to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back â;; saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers."
I know its an election year but holy %$^& can't we do more than posture and preen!!

Reply
1 Reply
- dondukdunComment removed: User banned.
0%
Albmore2 months ago

Now I dont care what party you are in, Isn't time we clear out Wash. D.C all together. These elected officials are not serving us, they are not protecting OUR interest. I believe except for a small hand full we should vote out every one of them.
Reply