Dr. Ben Carson recently made an appearance to a crowd of over 2,000 for a little campaigning and to sign copies of his new book, "A More Perfect Union".
During the visit, Carson said that he supports lifting the federal crude oil export ban and the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.
"We need to use the EPA to work with business, industry and academia to find the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way to utilize our tremendous energy resources," Carson said.
Texas energy legend T. Boone Pickens recently expressed support for Carson, saying he "likes Mr. Pickens’ creative, positive and innovative thinking, on energy, and other American issues." Pickens has made it a personal agenda to 'educate' presidential hopefuls on key energy issues.
Carson communications director Doug Watts has said that "Dr. Carson believes in unleashing the energy potential that resides within this country. As such, we are in favor of an energy policy that, among other things, promotes fracking and repeals the oil export ban.”
As the presidential race heats up, energy issues will certainly set the candidates apart.
So...as a mineral owner, does it matter to you who is in the Whitehouse?
It sure does. One party believes that oil and gas come from gas stations, but they cannot mentally connect that to the oil industry. They believe we are all entitled to cheap gas as a right, but they see oil companies as being inherently evil. They want the goods and services we need, but they deny the industries that provide them.
They think industry exist to provide cushy jobs and benefits. Profits are looked upon as being greed. Whenever I hear one of them use the term "corporate greed," I know they have no real knowledge of how an economy works. Their hostility to the economy will be the ruination of our nation.
They want clean air and water while at the same time they put a huge part of our society on food stamps. Notice they will never use the term "working class," but instead say "middle class." Most of us work for a living and are not by definition middle class. The word work offends a large portion of their constituency.
Half of our population pay no income tax, but they sure use the social welfare system. That portion has to be supported by the so called wealthy. That is you if you have minerals. While that party is in power, the best place for your minerals is in the ground.
I'm sorry, I think I trust Fortune Magazine more than one perspective:
We can deduce a couple of things from the above graphic, “U.S. Oil Production Under Bush and Obama.” One is that a sitting president has limited control over oil and gas production over the short term. Despite his famous proclamation that the U.S. is addicted to oil, President Bush’s policies reflected a more pro-oil stance than his successor. Yet oil production fell for eight straight years under Bush, while oil production has increased under Obama.
See the full piece here http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/12/18/the-energy-sector-under-president-obama-ignore-the-drama-big-oil-will-do-just-fine/
There are plenty of other articles showing that the economy actually does better when there is a D in the White house--here's one from CNN Money showing oil stocks up 19%
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/22/investing/stocks-market-best-investment-obama/
Maybe we should agree to leave politics out of these forums. We are all going to have a different perspective :)
Hi Robin...
Of course we will all have a different perspective, and that is exactly the point!! This is the perfect place for discussion around how politics impacts our mineral/property rights and how we manage our investments, especially in an election year.
Thanks for your comments and adding another perspective. \
:-)
The increase in production was the result of the industry's actions, not that of a political party. It was all American "Corporate Greed" that did the trick despite who was in the white house. Look deeper into the issue.
Okay, Elizabeth, good point!
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/subsidizingthecorporateonepercent.pdf
The wealthy also need support it seems. And neither party holds a monopoly when it comes to giving our tax dollars to corporate welfare. The media likes to throw around statements like "every man woman and child owes so many 10's of thousands of dollars because of the national debt", when in actuality its we taxpayers that are owed the bulk of that debt by our own government. The political parties love that they can keep us divided and bickering and all the while its business as usual. Worker wages used to rise with the economy. That stopped towards the end of the 70's. Productivity continues to grow and still wages remain stagnant.
Israel forsook God by asking for a king. When the elders of Israel asked for a king, they thought that better politics or government could meet their needs.
So it is with us. Sometimes we get just what we asked and/or voted for.
OF COURSE it matters! If it doesn't matter to you, then you are not doing your homework on these candidates.
It is my fear that the portion of our society that wants something from the government will exceed that portion that actually works, pays taxes and produces something. People will vote what they see as being in their best interest rather than that of the nation.
It is really sad.
If I remember right, I read that there are 14 states in the US that already have a population where there are more people on "entitlement" than work for a living.
The top states for receiving more than the contribute in 2015 are 1) New Mexico 2) Mississippi 3)Kentucky 4) Alabama 5) Montana 6) West Virginia 7) Arizona 8) Louisiana 9) South Dakota
10) Maine
In his State of the Union address last night President Obama praised his administration’s efforts on climate change and for accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy.
“Rather than subsidize the past,” he said, “we should invest in the future — especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”
Well, believe that if you want to. But, remember he was the guy that promised us free health care that somebody else was going to pay for. And now we have higher premiums and outrageous deductibles. The deductibles are so high that once you satisfy them, you are either dead or well.
The price of oil and gas are so low that the best place for our minerals is in the ground.
Frankly, I will be glad to see him leave office.
Robert, single payer universal health care like every other western industrialized country is probably the only answer IMO. You probably diss that too. But here are some data points if you are interested.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1,543, and in 2009 it was $3,515. For employers, their contribution was $4,247 in 1999 and $9,860 in 2009. [5]
The 9 million self-employed workers have a greater challenge than many people to find affordable health insurance. They represent 8 percent of the US labor force, and essentially pay a tax on their health insurance premiums, unlike any other workers. They pay a tax of 15.3 percent of their net earnings, double the rate of wage and salary earners.
Well Lyndon, I hope this system works out for you, but I am afraid that people will opt out of it when after paying those premiums they find out they still haven't met the deductible.
I agree with Robin, let's leave politics out of this discussion or else we will become mired in politics and nothing else. We need to know what is happening in Dimmit County regarding production, how we're being treated by folks who have our leases, etc.