Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (2424)	9/17/2008 9:40:30 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86356

House passes drilling bill Democrats bow to GOP pressure on drilling, but add oil industry tax cut repeals that Republicans blast. money.cnn.com WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an energy bill that could clear the way for more drilling in the United States, as the Democrats who control Congress yielded to pressure from Republicans on the issue. But the bill, which passed 236-189, contains provisions Republicans do not like, including a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry and a lack of incentive for states to allow drilling on their land. "It's time for an oil change in America," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters Tuesday. She contrasted her party's plan with "the status quo, which is preferred by Big Oil" and the Bush administration, "or change for the future to take our country in a new direction." She insisted that Republicans "must set aside their drill-only mentality." Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, called the Democratic bill "a charade," denying it would do what its backers claim. "This is not 'yes' to drilling. This is 'yes, but,'" he argued. "This is 'yes, but no drilling in Alaska, no drilling in the Eastern Gulf, no drilling inside 50 miles.' This is 'yes, but no litigation reform that will prevent radical environmental attorneys from tying up leases even before a single shovel of dirt is turned.'" The Democratic bill would allow drilling between 50 and 100 miles offshore, as opposed to the three-mile line favored by Republicans. It would require states to give their permission for drilling on their land. It would also include incentives for renewables, require the government to release oil from its emergency reserve, and force oil companies to drill on federal lands they already lease from the government. Democrats and Republicans traded harsh words on the House floor Tuesday in the debate over the bill. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., said President Bush's "idea of an energy policy is holding hands with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, embracing him with a big smooch." When the Republicans "controlled Congress, [they] passed their own energy bill, signed into law by the president. We got into this mess," the New York Democrat said. But Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, shot back that the Democrats' bill is a "sham" and a "fraud." "This is a bill designed to ensure Democrats' re-election, not designed to ensure affordable energy in America," he said. He also complained about how the bill was brought to the floor: "No amendments, no substitutes, no committee hearings. Is this democracy? No." The Senate could vote on various energy proposals, including more offshore drilling, as early as this week.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (2424)	9/17/2008 10:02:06 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I think the surplus funds get "invested" in US treasuries and the actual cash gets used as part of the government's general funds expenditures. Yep.. everytime SS runs a surplus, it increases the US national debt. All the surplus represents is a hidden tax on the American citizen and the means by which the government can increase it's spending. It's called an "intragovernmental" liability and isn't actually part of the public debt. That comes later when the government has to hike taxes, or raise more public debt to pay off those unfunded SSTF liabilities. Kind of ironic, isn't it? Hawk

To: RetiredNow who wrote (2424)	9/17/2008 5:41:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

OT But from where I'm sitting, I've put a ton of money into that damn system and I sure as hell expect to be paid back. You don't get paid back from that debt, you get sent payments from the federal government. To the extent that the Feds have any obligation to pay money to you (which I won't debate here), or even if you call it a debt (although you didn't ever loan the government money through Social Security, you paid taxes, just like your income taxes), that would be an obligation (or a "debt") of the government to you. Which is something separate from the supposed debt of the rest of the federal government to the social security administration. If the government decided that the "obligation to itself" was zero, your status would be exactly the same. It wouldn't reduce any real or imagined federal obligation to you (at least not directly), and it wouldn't change the feds ability to pay you. The "debt/trust fund" is an internal issue of the federal government only, and since the debt associated with social security always exactly equals the trust fund it nets out as zero. If it became officially zero/zero, rather than some positive X plus the same exact positive x, you could still be paid just as easily (or with just as much difficulty) as if we keep the current nominal trust fund and nominal debt. The issue is also sometimes state that "well the government is going to have to pay that money (for political reasons), so its a debt. Well the government is also going to have to pay a lot to a lot of other programs, but future spending, even future easily anticipated spending, doesn't amount to a debt.