Please help! Why would republicans in congress disagree with keeping any US oil in the US?

I seriously need a good answer to this question.

My hubby who would have voted for Hillary and has never voted for repub in his entire life is now going to vote for McIdiot. His number one reason is off shore drilling. He just can't understand that the oil would go to a world market and not to the US alone. I need a reason to give him that republicans will not vote to keep it in America. Anyone have any resource for me?

Thanks in advance

isn't getting rich off oil price speculation. If he was, he'd be a congressman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3612752

<<A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were <b>exported</b> during the first four months of this year, <b>up 33 percent</b> from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.>>

Republicans would stop this from happening if they wanted to stop it. They haven't, so they must want it.

Oil men are making money by the bank, and oil men contribute to the repukes.

Exporting distillates from the US allows the oil men to create a decrease in domestic supplies, forcing the markets up. It is a subtle form of manipulation that they hide behind "reduced refinery capacity", which obviously, there is not.

Exporting the distillates allows them a monitary hedge, because they can be paid in euros and keep those euros out of the US.

Just three out of many reasons. I assure you that if any smart person runs the numbers, the way the oil companies are running this scam someone will find that the exportation of distillates are not positively affecting GDP or balance of payments.

Another industry is throwing the American people over the side, in the name of profit. I believe that their plan is to break the American society and system over their knees.

They aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Plus, the oil companies already own leases to drill oil on government land that they aren't using. Why open up off-shore drilling sites until they use what they have??

That makes less profits for the shareholders. They aren't in the business to help the American people at the pump. They are in the business of maximizing profits for their shareholders. When the oil companies pump it out of the ground, they are going to sell it to the highest bidder---speculators in the futures markets all over the world. Money makes the world go round.

Seems to think? I'd say the burden of proof is on him then. Nowhere have I seen any mention by this misadinistration or the republicans...or Democrats in congress for that matter, the the oil should stay in the US. If there is no attached regulation that specifically requires the oil companies to keep the oil here, then they WILL put it on the global market because, well, that's what they do.

No offense intended, but if "seems to think" is what passes for fact checking for your husband, please encourage him to stay away from the polls in November.

if they get carte blanche to drill, the oil companies will do whatever maximizes their profits and to hell with everyone else.

I don't know if he's a republican or not, but if he is, what I'm about to say is going to sting, the truth usually does.

I remember when Reagan took office and branded his famous (or infamous) "trickle down" economics. The premise of which was "If we treat the richest well, tax cuts, corporate welfare and roll the red carpet out for them so to speak, the will in turn treat all of us well" Well guess what, they didn't. Why? Because they weren't required to. We were supposed to "take it on faith" that they would be responsible corporate citizens, instead, we wound up taking it in the ass.

It's been re-branded as "supply side" economics, but it's still the same old story. The fattest cats get the biggest breaks and what do they do? Outsource all the jobs overseas that they can and squeeze the workers to work fo peanuts on the ones that are left here because they can't figure out how to move them. And so on and so forth for the last 28 years or so.

Time and time and time again, the fattest cats in bed with the republicans have PROVED THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!Why on earth would it be any different with the oil they want to drill out of ANWR and offshore? No, I'd say the burden of proof lies with those that believe they actually would keep the oil here andd sell it to us at a fair price. They have absolutely no motovation to do so sans a requirement from the federal government.

I'm at a loss. I have no idea why he would think the oil corps would keep the oil here. good luck. :hi:

they already hold. One major reason for this is a short supply of rigs and supply ships. Leasing every square inch of the continental shelf won't increase drilling.

As for the sale of the oil, most of it will be used in the US unless it's like the oil in Alaska, bunker oil that US refineries can't handle.

What needs to be done is link offshore leases to timing, that drilling needs to be done in the order those leases were assigned. That will decrease the possibility of economic blackmail against tourist and ecologically sensitive areas.

Economic blackmail is the only reason I can come up with for the push to lease sensitive areas at this particular time. They don't lack places to drill or oil to pump.

You might also remind him that there are no gas lines and that tankers are sitting in the Persian Gulf, waiting for customers. There is no oil shortage at this time and certainly no reason for the rush to lease parts of the continental shelf that couldn't possibly be drilled with the current lack of equipment.

and call anyone who disagrees a whiner?

It's the same mindset - corporations are more important than people, the market is more important than democracy, is you don't have money then you don't matter.

Then have him look up VECO and its current scandal. That may start to answer some questions.

Just ask hubby if he had a commodity worth something...like a rare baseball card...and you had two bidders...one a Japanese guy who offers $100,000 and an American who only bids $50,000...whose he gonna sell to? A corporation has a "fiduciary" duty to its stock holders to get the highest return on their investment.

Next ask him how he feels that there's tons of oil that's being held off the market and tons of leases that haven't been explored and drilled. Then throw in the fun we'll have if boooshie boy and his "soul-mate" Gramps decides to bomb Iranian oil facilities and they retaliate by blockading the Straits of Hormuz. And so much the better for the oil companies and their investors. For many GOOPers they see rising oil prices and taking money out of one pocket and putting it (along with many others) in another.

Hopefully you'll be able to keep him at home on election day...or convince him to vote for Bob Barr...

Cheers...

why wouldn't the GOP stand up for profits? The free market and all..

I'm not sure, but it seems that I've read stories about the fact that refineries are not expanding and even the ones we have are not being run at full capacity. Has Bush also made statements promoting the increase of refinery capacity with that extra oil he wants to drill? If not, how does he propose to make that oil available in the form of gasoline in America? Aren't we forced to import not only oil but already-refined gasoline right now?