D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
Tax cuts to businesses and business owners don't help the economy? Rolling back regulations don't help the economy? On what planet?
Awful jobs numbers come out
- Thread starter Bugsy McGurk
- Start date
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
Don't worry... I'm sure *middleview* is typing up his concession speech on the issue "as we speak". There's no way he'll blame this on Republicans and/or George W. Bush. *Middleview* is far too principled and non-partisan to do anything but acknowledge his error and assign blame to Barack Hussein Obama. No, really!
I keep asking and none of you Trumpies seem to know...What regulations has Trump rolled back?
How much was your tax cut...mine was trivial. Certainly not enough to change my household income...and given the difference between last years tax refund and the amount I had to pay, I'd say I'm no better off.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Not a "Trumpie," but I do have the answer:
https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/
BTW, I agree on the tax part...
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
First of, off course you would never admit you benefited from a Republican tax cut. You're far too partisan.
Now read up on flaring regulations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-18/trump-relaxes-obama-curbs-on-flaring-gas-from-wells-on-u-s-land
If you need remedial lessons on how this helps the economy, I'm here for you.
Of course...it is far better to burn off the methane than to harvest it. Have you ever been near enough to a well to hear the flare? That regulation plus the epa rule that would stop coal mines from dumping mine waste into rivers and streams were two I knew about.
So are there a lot more people working in oil production today because that rule went away? How about coal? Thousands of new jobs? How about between 1,000 and 2,000 jobs.
Oil industry jobs? Since the rule just changed in September 2018 we probably don't have info on that...
Tax cuts? I was against Obama extending the Bush tax cuts. I'm a conservative and believe that you pay as you go. I understand deficit spending to pull the economy through a recession, but just to buy votes? Nope. Obama should have refused the deal and let the republicans defend their linking unemployment benefits to tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year.
I started reading through them and have to say that after the first 20 or so...I can't see a postive impact on the economy in saying that a Pilot instructor doesn't have to have a medical certificate or that there should be no fiduciary responsibility for a financial advisor....
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
You asked about a regulation that helped the economy. I provided it to you. Now you want to change the subject to debating the virtues of flaring? Hilarious. Here, I'll throw you a bone. I concede it's better to pipeline and sell natural gas rather than flare it.
As for being close enough to a well to hear the flaring- you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, some gas can be flared at wells. That's the exception rather than the rule. Most gas is flared at collections points called batteries or further downstream. And yes, I've been close enough to hear the flaring. I've been close enough to see flares at least 30 feet tall and feel the heat from them. What about it?
Furthermore, we can in fact tell how much allowing flaring is helping by looking at the monthly production figures. Here they are for the Permian Basin, the capital of oil and gas production for the United States.
https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/research-and-statistics/production-data/texas-monthly-oil-gas-production/
In fact, the Permian Basin has become the most productive oil field on the planet in 2019. But hey, I guess you'll argue they're somehow increasing that production without hiring additional people. I guess all those oil and gas jobs, many with hiring bonuses and free housing, are a sign that there's no hiring going on to help the increase in production.
https://www.energyindepth.org/the-permian-basin-is-now-the-highest-producing-oilfield-in-the-world/
But hey, I'm sure that has nothing to do with allowing flaring, right?
You asked to know what regulations Trump cut that helped the economy. I provided an example. Now dodge away all you want. Or you can man up and face reality: flaring enables companies to expand oil production.
Oh and by the way, it's not like they're going to keep flaring a million bucks worth of gas per day forever. There are thousands of miles of pipelines being built to handle the increasing oil and gas production.
https://napipelines.com/2019-oil-pipeline-report-permian-basin-production-infrastructure-projects/
Guess what that means? More jobs.
There, I think you've had enough for now.
Oh but yes, I know that you're a "conservative" now that a Republican is in office. I've been one all along. Unlike you, my ethics don't change with the letter behind a President's name.
What you cannot do is link flaring to jobs.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Actually, that is precisely what @The Thinker did. That you can't put two and two together and get four is not our problem.
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
That statement can only be made by a person who cannot think. We both know it's your extreme partisanship.
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
You got pummeled. You know it. I know it. But just to humiliate you even more, I'm going to dumb it down further.
Not allowing flaring limits production of oil and gas. FACT.
Allowing flaring removes limit on production of oil and gas. FACT.
Oil and gas production then increases. FACT.
The need for additional personnel to handle increased production increases. FACT.
The need for additional pipelines for oil and especially gas increases. FACT.
- sub lesson for you here. It is is not cost effective to collect and contain gas at batteries or
smaller collection points. That is specifically why gas is flared.
Jobs increase due to flaring. FACT.
Now I'm going to be gratuitous just to enjoy watching you remain in denial because it is in your DNA to not credit Donald Trump with anything positive. It's quite entertaining, actually.
Below is a link to a chart that shows how much gas has been flared in the Permian Basin. It also includes the volume released via flaring, which has tripled since early 2017.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/permian-basin-is-flaring-more-gas-than-texas-residents-use-daily
If you still respond by saying I have provided no link between flaring and jobs, know that you have just outed yourself as either incredibly stupid and/or incredibly DUMB.
I would say "choose wisely", but know you won't.
Once again...you have not linked jobs to flaring...how many new jobs since 9/2018?
Add to that...why are we paying more for gas now....
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
Specifically, which of my facts do you dispute? And on what facts do you base your dispute?
Also, what does the price of gas have to do with the topic, other than your obvious attempt to dodge?
your own data shows higher production before the september change in rules.
supply and demand mean anything to you?
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
Supply and demand mean anything to you?
Look, the fact remains: loosening the regulation on flaring led to additional oil and gas production. The amount of gas flared makes that self-evident. You are completely outmatched, boxed in and destroyed by simple reality. There is literally nothing you can do. But just to have more fun at your expense:
Does the gas flared represent production of gas that wouldn't have occurred were it not for loosening rules on flaring? Yes or no?
And again, specifically, which of the facts I presented do you dispute?
Edit: @SW48 why is @Bear Claw disliking a post in which he/she/it is not even participating in? Sounds like ratings abuse to me. That said, I like it. It means Bear Claw knows I'm kicking middleview's ass.
Last edited by a moderator:
your production data shows less production not more...compare august 2018....
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
Your dodge is noted. Let's try this again. Gas flared represents production that would not have occurred without the change in rules on gas flaring. True or false?
Bugsy McGurk
President
Your post is a tad lacking in evidence. Your asking for comments on evidence you don’t provide.
What is your evidence that:
1. Increased flaring led to more production (as opposed to just stuffing more cash into producers’ pockets),
2. That any such alleged increased production led to more jobs, and
3. That no jobs were lost among those whose job is to control pollution.
Good luck.
