You're right on that. It'll take 20-30 if we really work on it.
The Speech
- Thread starter dwaxe
- Start date
You're right on that. It'll take 20-30 if we really work on it.
AngryZealot
King
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 770
Technically he said oil from the Middle East, which is a little more feasible. Canada is one of our largest oil suppliers.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
I agree...it could probably be done in 20 or more likely 30 years.
Granted, lets get to work now, but I really don't think it was wise to call out 10 years.
~Chris
dwaxe
is not a fanatic
You don't think landing on the moon was a miracle?
McCain would tell you to wear a flag pin.
Yeah, Chris, getting off Middle Eastern oil wouldn't be that hard.
http://acta.us/growls/2008/02/where_do_us_oil_imports_come_f.html
So if the US could decrease its 2008's consumption by 25% (not an easy task, but doable) America could stop buying oil from the Middle East.
Now, that doesn't mean the Middle East becomes irrelevant. Everyone else would still buy their oil. If their supply was disrupted by terrorism, war or embargoes, it would still hit the US hard.
Edit: right now, the US consumes 20,600,000 barrels / day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html). Canada could supply the US for 24 years if it were possible to pump it that fast.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Interesting. Thought I heard "foreign oil" (probably because that is the buzz these days), however after reading the official transcript, you are both right.
I never said Obama wasn't crafty!
And your right Augurey, weening off ME oil is not as impossible a task, although still very very hard to do.
~Chris
I never said Obama wasn't crafty!
And your right Augurey, weening off ME oil is not as impossible a task, although still very very hard to do.
~Chris
This was my first thought on reading this thread. Doesn't it not matter? If we stop importing ME oil, then someone else will, and nothing really changes. Wouldn't even "foreign oil" be the same thing?
Cleo
Yes. In effect, other than the fact that there are different "grades" of oil, once it's pumped out of the ground it all goes in to the common pool. The US even exports oil. So if we drill more, or import more from say the new Brazil offshore field (once it's up and running), then that just means that our friends and allies are getting a higher portion from the ME. So our choosing to avoid ME oil neither helps us nor hurts them.
Consumption is up too far in too many places for anything except increased efficiency and conservation to matter any longer.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
While it won't affect the price of oil, it does affect the physical supply. If say the SOH gets closed while the price of oil worldwide will increas, our physical supply is still available even if it is expensive. Expensive oil is bad enough, no supply period is worse.
Well you can have the moral ground of not sending money to the Middle East, but to Canada. I'm cool with it.
Obama said:
Yeah, he lost me there. Michigan auto workers get paid more than medical doctors in most first world countries, and they keep whining. They and their unions are the reason why the american auto industry has pretty much collapsed. They represent all that is wrong in the Democratic Party, and they are in fact a bunch of overpaid whiners.
I am certain that Obama has a nice plan of subsidies and protectionism for the auto sector that will keep those whiners rich and the US industry decadent.
Why do you blame unions for the actions of the companies?
None, not one, of the problems with the automakers was caused by a decision made by unions. That's just scapegoating the victim. Which is a favorite tactic of people who hate personal responsibility.
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
It was a good speech, but I liked A More Perfect Union more. The guy is a top class speaker.
If the Unions were half reasonable they'd understand that keeping the excessive salaries and gigantic benefits that Michigan auto-workers have would mean the death of the US auto industry.
And yet they refused to negotiate, and the US auto industry is going down the drain, and so is Michigan to some degree.
To call the unions victims is just too much. As I said, they are overpaid whiners whose reluctance to accept that they are paid way more than they deserve caused the collapse of their industry.
It was not a lack of sales that destroyed the american car industry, it was the huge costs.
Compare the cost of an employee at a Toyota plant in Japan and one in any plant in Michigan. Of course, the companies are the ones ultimately to blame. They should have fired all those whiners and relocated to Mexico or elsewhere.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
I just finished reading the transcript of the speech and while Obama is a great speaker his words were just the usual combination of meaningless fluff and misleading statements that politicians use in speeches.
The one thing that did interest me was his few lines on energy policiy:
Does this mean that Obama is now pro nuclear power? If it is +1 to Obama but I have the feeling that this is just away to appear to accept nuclear power without actually accepting nuclear power.
The one thing that did interest me was his few lines on energy policiy:
Does this mean that Obama is now pro nuclear power? If it is +1 to Obama but I have the feeling that this is just away to appear to accept nuclear power without actually accepting nuclear power.
Merkinball
Deity
Responsibility? Apparently you're not too familiar with the automotive industry in this country.
UAW-GM workers, when you take into account their benefits, average over $70 an hour without the cushy pensions. (I've linked this on the forum a couple times in the past). Don't you think that's a little excessive? Now responsibility to workers is pegged at $70 an hour for high school drop outs to fasten widgets onto gizmos in a car? Gimme a break dude.
The automotive industry in America is a curious thing. You say that the problems with automotive manufacturers has nothing to with unions, but everything to do with the corporations.
It's a curious premise, but utterly false. A good example of why you're completely wrong is the influx of foreign car manufacturer's into the United States. Numerous foreign car manufacturers have set up shop in the south. Primarly Alabama and Tennessee. They pay their workers a fair wage. The average floor worker at these plants is not unionized, and after benefits averages $21 dollars an hour.
You're going to sit here and tell me that labor costs have nothing to do with what has happened to General Motors? It's just absolutely ludicrous. Examine GM's pension plan and the BILLIONS of dollars that GM has had to funnel into pension plans so that high school drop outs who make over $30 an hour in base wages alone can retire on more than $50,000 a year, and then tell me that has nothing to do with the demise of General Motors.
As a result of absurd labor costs in the American automotive industry in America, GM and Ford have been crippled. Meanwhile, mostly non-unionized foreign auto manufacturers like Mercedez, Honda, Toyota, Hyundia and others are prospering in the south. Detroit, Flint, and Buffalo are America's largest urban wastelands...essentially ghost cities, because of union greed. While southern states continue to add thousands of jobs thanks to insourced foreign auto manufacturers.
I really think you need to gather some information on the problems caused by GM's pension plan. It's totally absurd when you look at GM's entire business model. To sit there and pretend like this massive funding for union demands didn't have an impact on areas of research and development is just crazy. To think that the impact had nothing to do with the quality of car that Ford or GM could produce is ludicrous.
I'm not exactly a huge union fan, Merkin, but your use of the phrase "high school dropout" I have to suspect is a bit inaccurate. Just what percentage of UAW workers are high school dropouts. And even putting that aside, are you claiming that a high school dropout does not have the capability to learn and hone a mechanical skill?
Guess it's a good thing that he's going after the vote of Michigan auto workers instead of you.
Merkinball
Deity
Many. Back in the sixties and seventies when these problems really began to take root (I'll speak for Buffalo) it was okay to be a high school drop-out. Everyone knew someone in some union in the city. Whether it was at Rich's Coffee, the Ford Plants, US Steel, the grain mills, Westinghouse, Honeywell... Buffalo has never had a very good record with graduating its students. It's just that...back in the day, you could tap your buddy on the shoulder, get into some factory tightening screws on car doors and make more in pay and benefits than a doctor in France.
Obviously I'm not saying that a high school drop out does not have the capability to learn and hone a mechanical skill (even though a lot of these workers didn't even need a skill of any sort.) I'm saying they were paid too much money, and now cities like Buffalo, Flint, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Detroit are feeling the economic brunt of those extremely pro-union policies. Labor costs became too high. Now we have ghost cities. So what's better in the end? Paying people decent living wages that high school drop outs deserve like Mercedez is doing in Alabama, or Toyota is doing in Nashville? Or paying ridiculously high wages to high school dropouts, so that in the end, nobody has a job at all?
Similar threads
