WELFARE SCHILL files for bankruptcy and has the feds on his case! he owes between 100-500m! should he leave ESPN?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? :   Your post is completely fabricated containing nothing your false beliefs.
    Posted by vtfanofcs


    Look Junior go to google or read the links I gave you but don't say I'm fabricating a story when I gave you links to back up my point.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    ThatWasMe,  are you a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--one of the nation's biggest contributors to the Right-wing politcal agenda?  In the interest of truth and disclosure, the U.S. Chamber of Congress is one of the largest contributors to the Republican party of any organization in the country, and is one of the main lobbyists preventing Dodd-Frank from being enforced, along with working to prevent the resurrection of Glass-Steagall (having fought so hard during the Clinton years to have it repealed); the one act that ought to be reinstated in order to prevent another bubble and financial collapse (JP Morgan Chase anyone?).
    Posted by parhunter55



    What difference does it make if the point I made is true?

    That is Obama has had nothing to do with the current hydrofracking in N. Dakota and Texas on private lands responsible for the current oil boom.

    The best you guys can do is call me an idealogue.

    Obviously neither of you have a clue when it comes to domestic energy.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    What is wrong with you people?

    Yeah production is up but because of the wells on private lands. Permits for gov't lands is at an all time low.

    Why would you use government lands (ie, lands you and I own by virtue of paying the taxes that bought it and maintains the integrity and rights to) when privately held (ie, owned and/or lease by mega-corporations, such as Exxon-Mobil) lands are producing at record levels, and have flooded an already abundant market. 

    I thought you right-wingers (don't give me the independent line; I am just as independent in my voting as you, and at least I listen to more than Rupert Mordoch's Fox News to get my information) wanted less government? 

    Wouldn't drilling on public lands mean more government?  More government involvement and subsidy and interference through regulation and permit selling?

    You cannot have it both ways; either you want less government and less spending, or you want to feed the Corporate take-over of America.  Which is it?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    That is just it.  The point you made was not true, and never will be no matter how many times you or Fox News repeat it, "junior."

    Try reading and comprehending what vt and I wrote.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    'Stupid' and Oil Prices

    Obama's Forrest Gump analysis of rising gas prices.

    As for domestic energy, Mr. Obama rightly points to the rising share of U.S. oil consumption now produced at home. But this trend began in the late Bush Administration, which opened up large new areas on and offshore for oil and gas drilling that are now coming on stream. Mr. Obama sneered at expanded drilling as a candidate in 2008 and for most of his term has done little to expand it.

    In early 2010, he proposed to open some new areas to drilling but shut that down after the Gulf oil spill. According to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permits Index for January 31, over the previous three months the feds issued an average of three deep-water drilling permits a month compared to the historical average of seven. Over the same three months, the feds approved an average of 4.7 shallow-water permits a month, compared to the historical average of 14.7.

    Approval of an offshore drilling plan now takes 92 days, 31 more than the historical average. And so far in 2012, an average of 23% of all drilling plans have been approved, compared to the average of 73.4%.

    Oh, and don't forget the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have increased the delivery of oil from Canada and North Dakota's Bakken Shale to Gulf Coast refineries, replacing oil from Venezuela.

    The reality is that most of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production has come despite the Obama Administration. It is flowing from the shale boom, which is the result of private technological advances and investment. Mr. Obama has seen the energy sun rise and is crowing like a rooster that he made it happen.

    Mr. Obama yesterday also repeated his proposal that now is the time to raise taxes on oil and gas companies, as if doing so will make them more likely to drill. He must not believe the economic truism that when you tax something you get less of it, including fewer of the new jobs they've created

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577241623995642182.html

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Look Junior go to google or read the links I gave you but don't say I'm fabricating a story when I gave you links to back up my point.
    Posted by ThatWasMe



    What you gave was a link to a politcal advertisement, from a political group (as I pointed out, but you seem to ignore).  Try citing independent research and study.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    You guys believe what you like I'll believe the Wall Street Journal.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    'Stupid' and Oil Prices Obama's Forrest Gump analysis of rising gas prices. As for domestic energy, Mr. Obama rightly points to the rising share of U.S. oil consumption now produced at home. But this trend began in the late Bush Administration, which opened up large new areas on and offshore for oil and gas drilling that are now coming on stream. Mr. Obama sneered at expanded drilling as a candidate in 2008 and for most of his term has done little to expand it. In early 2010, he proposed to open some new areas to drilling but shut that down after the Gulf oil spill. According to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permits Index for January 31, over the previous three months the feds issued an average of three deep-water drilling permits a month compared to the historical average of seven. Over the same three months, the feds approved an average of 4.7 shallow-water permits a month, compared to the historical average of 14.7. Approval of an offshore drilling plan now takes 92 days, 31 more than the historical average. And so far in 2012, an average of 23% of all drilling plans have been approved, compared to the average of 73.4%. Oh, and don't forget the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have increased the delivery of oil from Canada and North Dakota's Bakken Shale to Gulf Coast refineries, replacing oil from Venezuela. The reality is that most of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production has come despite the Obama Administration. It is flowing from the shale boom, which is the result of private technological advances and investment. Mr. Obama has seen the energy sun rise and is crowing like a rooster that he made it happen. Mr. Obama yesterday also repeated his proposal that now is the time to raise taxes on oil and gas companies, as if doing so will make them more likely to drill. He must not believe the economic truism that when you tax something you get less of it, including fewer of the new jobs they've created http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577241623995642182.html    
    Posted by ThatWasMe


    Yes, your Wall Street Journal is truly a bastion of fair-mindedness and concern for the every man.  But regardless, which is it that you want?  A government of, by and for the Corporations, or of and by and for the people?

    And as far as your "private" lands.  Nothing is private when the pollution caused by such energy production is concerned.  Or did you forget the Gulf and BP's negligence there.  Or are you totally unaware of the people getting sick in Texas, near where natural gas fracking has completely changed the town in the last 5 years?  Or the fires that still burn under portions of PA, from coal mining disasters years ago, that have created virtual 20th century ghost towns?  And on the list could go.  But you wouldn't hear or read about them in the WSJ or on Fox News.

    All things have a cost.  One needs to decide morally, who should bear the costs, and at which point the costs are not worth the return.  My position is that corporations should bear almost the entire cost, since they reap all the return.  And I believe that my taxes and my government have been subsidizing and bailing out the corporations far too long.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?



    ThatWasMe,

    Great job!!  Where have you been all my life?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Yes, your Wall Street Journal is truly a bastion of fair-mindedness and concern for the every man.  But regardless, which is it that you want?  A government of, by and for the Corporations, or of and by and for the people? And as far as your "private" lands.  Nothing is private when the pollution caused by such energy production is concerned.  Or di dyou forget the Gulf and BP's negligence there.  Or are you totally unaware of the people getting sick in Texas, near where natural gas fracking has completely changed the town in the last 5 years?  Or the fires that still burn under portions of PA, from coal mining disasters years ago, that have created virtual 20th century ghost towns?  And on the list could go.  But you wouldn't hear or read about them in the WSJ or on Fox NewNews. All things have a cost.  One needs to decide morally, who should bear the costs, and at which point the costs are not worth the return.  My position is that corporations should bear almost the entire cost, since they reap all the return.  And I believe that my taxes and my government have been subsidizing and bailing out the corporations far too long.
    Posted by parhunter55


    Look, the guy from VT wrote that Obama was responsible for the current energy boom, I said he wasn't all my points validated by the WSJ.

    End of story.

    You don't like the WSJ then too bad.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Yes, your Wall Street Journal is truly a bastion of fair-mindedness and concern for the every man.  But regardless, which is it that you want?  A government of, by and for the Corporations, or of and by and for the people? And as far as your "private" lands.  Nothing is private when the pollution caused by such energy production is concerned.  Or di dyou forget the Gulf and BP's negligence there.  Or are you totally unaware of the people getting sick in Texas, near where natural gas fracking has completely changed the town in the last 5 years?  Or the fires that still burn under portions of PA, from coal mining disasters years ago, that have created virtual 20th century ghost towns?  And on the list could go.  But you wouldn't hear or read about them in the WSJ or on Fox NewNews. All things have a cost.  One needs to decide morally, who should bear the costs, and at which point the costs are not worth the return.  My position is that corporations should bear almost the entire cost, since they reap all the return.  And I believe that my taxes and my government have been subsidizing and bailing out the corporations far too long.
    Posted by parhunter55


    Are you actually implying that the NYT(All the news fit to wipe) is more reputable than the WSJ? If so, it's a comment that's so absurd that words alone make it impossible to respond to.
    to rspond to.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Are you actually implying that the NYT(All the news fit to wipe) is more reputable than the WSJ? If so, it's a comment that's so absurd that words alone make it impossible to respond to. to rspond to.
    Posted by ampoule


    NYT being kept afloat by a loan shark says it all.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : What is wrong with you people? Yeah production is up but because of the wells on private lands. Permits for gov't lands is at an all time low. Far lower than any administration in the past twenty years. Any drilling on govt. land being done today is being done because of permits that were given 10 years ago. It takes ten years for a well to come to market. Obama has had nothing to do with the current boom. Obama is fos and apparently you kool aide drinkers are slugging it down. Read the article and link i provided, he has shut down drilling but lies through his teeth when taking credit for today's production, it is going on despite Obama.
    Posted by ThatWasMe

      Private land is onshore land.  Onshore production on federal lands is up again.  3.7% increase in 2011.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Look Junior go to google or read the links I gave you but don't say I'm fabricating a story when I gave you links to back up my point.
    Posted by ThatWasMe

      You haven't backed up a single thing boy.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Look, the guy from VT wrote that Obama was responsible for the current energy boom, I said he wasn't all my points validated by the WSJ. End of story. You don't like the WSJ then too bad.
    Posted by ThatWasMe


    You pointed to an editorial.  It was in the 'opinion' section of the WSJ.   It wasn't an article at all, and at least the online version wasn't even sourced with an author.  People are going to believe what they want, but it's truly sad that half the US population will only accept news from Rupert Murdoch.  

    Step back and use your common sense.  Is it more likely that news stemming from a single individual is biased, or that all other news sources across the world are biased?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    You guys believe what you like I'll believe the Wall Street Journal.
    Posted by ThatWasMe

      Unless of course, the WSJ allows something you don't like to appear on the opinion page.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : You pointed to an editorial.  It was in the 'opinion' section of the WSJ.   It wasn't an article at all, and at least the online version wasn't even sourced with an author.  People are going to believe what they want, but it's truly sad that half the US population will only accept news from Rupert Murdoch.   Step back and use your common sense.  Is it more likely that news stemming from a single individual is biased, or that all other news sources across the world are biased?
    Posted by slomag


    Believe what you want. Amazes me how ignorant of world events and politics you people are, partisan views aside.

    Yeah I watch Fox, I do because I want the news.

     I don't get the news when I watch ABC, CBS or NBC although I try as often as I can.

    I watch CNN, MSNBC and all the political shows every night and on Sunday, I even watch John Mc Laughlin's show on PBS Sunday morning.

    I've read the NYT and WSJ and a local paper daily since i was teenager. And now the internet.

    I registered as an Independent in 1968 and have maintained that affiliation since. I campaigned and protested against Nixon

    I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans for the presidency and NY state and local offices. I voted Jimmy carter his first term, but over the years I have become more conservative as the Democrats have become more liberal.

    As far as this President goes I never thought that i would see a President as devisive as Richard Nixon but I have now. Class warefare, demonization of the rich, wall street, large corporations, no hope and change.

    It was great that we finally overcame race in 2008 but besides that this President is a divider an idealogue and a terrible leader.

    November can't come quick enough for me.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? :   Unless of course, the WSJ allows something you don't like to appear on the opinion page.
    Posted by vtfanofcs


    I'm waiting for a fact based reputable link from you to back your point up on how Obama has created this current energy boom in the USA particularly Texas and N. Dakota.

    Otherwise get lost, you know what they say about opinions, because that's all you have.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : You pointed to an editorial.  It was in the 'opinion' section of the WSJ.   It wasn't an article at all, and at least the online version wasn't even sourced with an author.  People are going to believe what they want, but it's truly sad that half the US population will only accept news from Rupert Murdoch.   Step back and use your common sense.  Is it more likely that news stemming from a single individual is biased, or that all other news sources across the world are biased?
    Posted by slomag


    You don't like it?  Then find a reputable link to rebut the facts it has in it's content.

    All I get is personal attacks but no facts.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    And someone explain to me why the President deep sixed the Keystone XL Pipeline if not to appease his leftwing base.

    Makes no sense. American jobs (Union), Canadian oil.

    Must be because of his robust energy policy.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    More of the same, but like they say you can lead a horse to water but not force him to drink.

    President Obama's Energy Policy Is to Raise Gas Prices

    This story comes from the Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world’s most popular websites.Do you have a story to tell? Become a Yahoo! contributor

    COMMENTARY | As reported by CBS News, President Barack Obama was asked a question from correspondent Ed Henry about high American gas prices. He wanted to address some voters' feelings that Obama wants higher gas prices in order to drive people toward so-called green technology. Obama's response was, "From a political perspective, do you think the president of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher? Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?"

    I think I can speak for a lot of people and agree with him. I don't think he wants high gas prices in an election year. The other three years, however, it is my opinion that Obama does indeed want higher gasoline costs.

    One only has to look back to the 2008 presidential campaign to see his feelings on gas prices. He told CNBC's John Harwood that when gas prices were spiking at the time, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment…" To paraphrase his quote, he supports higher prices as long as it is done slowly.

    When he became president, he appointed Professor Steven Chu as his energy secretary. In September 2008, Chu is quoted by Fox News as wanting to make American gas prices comparable to those found in Europe. European gas prices currently run 1.54 euros per liter according to Europe's Energy Portal. If we convert that to American dollars and gallons, that would equal about $7.92 per gallon. That is more than twice what we currently pay. According to Chu, the purpose of this price forcing is to get consumers to buy green technology.

    The best way to lower gas prices is to increase the supply. In 2008, Obama's answer to calls to increase oil supplies was to tell us to inflate our tires and get a tune up. Since then, he has jumped on the drilling bandwagon in his speeches.

    However, according to National Review, his policies has not changed to support more oil exploration. He has strangled the approval for new shallow water drilling permits from a pre-Obama average of 14.1 permits per month to a February 2012 average of 2.3 per month. In 2011, the USA Today tells us that he staunchly opposed the Keystone Pipeline which would allow the U.S. to tap into the vast new oil reserves from Canada. Finally, there has not been a major new oil refinery built since 1978 despite massive increase in gasoline demand.

    Obama does not want higher gas prices in an election year. It pains me to say it, however, but it appears from the evidence above that a high gas price at any other time is preferred from his administration in the name of environmentalism.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    The Campaign Spot

    Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.


    The Cost of Obama’s Gulf Oil Permit Slowdown

    Yesterday, I reported on Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal pointing out that during a late winter of skyrocketing gasoline prices, the president who keeps taking credit for increased domestic oil production has actually slowed the approval of leases and permits in the Gulf of Mexico to a crawl.

    A report by Greater New Orleans Inc., an organization of businesses large and small in Southeast Louisiana, lays out how the Obama administration is approving only a fraction of the new permits, significantly less than preceding administrations in both deepwater projects and shallow water projects, that getting approval from Obama’s Department of Interior takes much longer than before he took office, and how Obama’s administration rejects a much higher percentage of proposals for drilling than before he took office.

    On October 12, 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE, the renamed Minerals Management Service) announced  that the federal government would lift the drilling moratorium.

    In addition to its Economic Impact Study, released after the Deepwater Drilling Moratorium was lifted, Greater New Orleans, Inc. continued  to monitor and report on deep and shallow water permit issuance through the Gulf Permit Index (GPI). GNO, Inc. researchers aggregate public data from BOEMRE into graphs.

    The GPI documents that both deep-water and shallow-water permit issuance continue to lag the previous year’s average:

    The three-year historical average had been seven deep-water permits issued per month; now the Obama administration has it down to two per month.

    The three-year average for shallow-water drilling permits had been 14.7 per month; the Obama administration now has that down to 2.3 per month.

    The average approval time has increased from an average of 60.6 days in the preceding five years to 109 days in 2011.

    And more drilling plans are rejected than ever. The five-year average had been 73.4 percent approval; now it’s down to only 34 percent of drilling plans approved.

    The economic impact of the permitting slowdown – what some call a “permit-atorium” – is not limited to the increase in prices from reduced production and supply. The study also found a direct economic impact in the Gulf region:

    Despite the relatively limited employment losses reflected in public employment data, this study provides evidence that businesses are indeed laying off workers, reducing hours and salaries, and limiting new hires as a result of the permit slowdown and  insecurity about future markets in the Gulf of Mexico. Forty-nine (48% of all surveyed)  companies reported laying off workers. Sixty-five (65.6%) companies surveyed reported no hiring or only replacement of lost employees. Of the companies that did hire, numbers were generally low with only one company reporting hiring over 50 workers in the last year. Some businesses have been cutting costs by reducing employees’ hours and/or salaries. Thirty-eight companies reported reducing hours and salaries of employees, sometimes as much as 40% in order to avoid layoffs.

    The current increase in domestic oil production is in spite of the Obama administration’s policies, not because of it. When the President and his appointees have the power to increase domestic production, they are dragging their heels and rejecting proposals when they can.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : I'm waiting for a fact based reputable link from you to back your point up on how Obama has created this current energy boom in the USA particularly Texas and N. Dakota. Otherwise get lost, you know what they say about opinions, because that's all you have.
    Posted by ThatWasMe


      You haven't provided a single reputable link.  You haven't rebutted anything I said.  As far as your claim, that I credited Obama with creating energy booms you made that up.  You lost the argument then tried to change what the terms of the argument was about.  You said Obama has shut down the oil and gas industry.  You lost pal.  The facts are the facts.  Production is up.

      It is unfortunate that your a disciple of Rush Limbaugh.   All you do is regurgitate your prejudices and lies, ignore counter evidence and inconvenient facts, rely on phony sources that suit them.  And ultimately, you dishonestly try to change the subject of the argument after losing.  Better luck next time.

      I do know what the say about opinions, you probably don't want to look in the mirror.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? :   You haven't provided a single reputable.  You haven't rebutted anything I said.  As far as your claim, that I credited Obama with creating energy booms you made that up.  You lost the argument then tried to change what the terms of the argument was about.  You said Obama has shut down the oil and gas industry.  You lost pal.  The facts are the facts.  Production is up.   It is unfortunate that your a disciple of Rush Limbaugh.   All you do is regurgitate your prejudices and lies, ignore counter evidence and inconvenient facts, rely on phony sources that suit them.  And ultimately, you dishonestly try to change the subject of the argument after losing.  Better luck next time.   I do know what the say about opinions, you probably don't want to look in the mirror.
    Posted by vtfanofcs


    WSJ isn't as reputable as the Vermont Bugle but I'll bet anywhere else in the world it is the gold standard.

    But the truth of the matter is you just  believe what you want to believe and nothing of a factual nature will change it.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? :   You haven't provided a single reputable link.  You haven't rebutted anything I said.  As far as your claim, that I credited Obama with creating energy booms you made that up.  You lost the argument then tried to change what the terms of the argument was about.  You said Obama has shut down the oil and gas industry.  You lost pal.  The facts are the facts.  Production is up.   It is unfortunate that your a disciple of Rush Limbaugh.   All you do is regurgitate your prejudices and lies, ignore counter evidence and inconvenient facts, rely on phony sources that suit them.  And ultimately, you dishonestly try to change the subject of the argument after losing.  Better luck next time.   I do know what the say about opinions, you probably don't want to look in the mirror.
    Posted by vtfanofcs


    Yeah I made everything up.

    Read the links.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share