If we nationalized all extractives; oil, gas, minerals, coal, ect....every child in the US......

[hang a left]

Could have access to a free college education and free medical care. What else could the country do with that money?

I am just thinking that these items belong to American citizens. Why should a few robber barrons be able to become so filthy rich at the expense of the peoples and environment of the United States.

What do you think?

[leftofthedial]

1. I think capitalism is the enemy of our species and our planet

and nationalizing these resources would be a good first step

[dysfunctional press]

71. unregulated capitalism is the problem.

although i agree that certain industries, energy and healthcare chief among them, need to be nationalized, and NOT for-profit.

[RB TexLa]

2. Are you talking about nationalizing the companies or taking my oil and gas from my land

away from me?

[hang a left]

4. Nationalizing the companies and to give you fair market value

for the extractives on your property.

[RB TexLa]

5. don't think so, I'll sell to someone outside of North America

[hang a left]

Would you really??

If this type of sweeping reform had a benefit to all of Americans? Would you also complain of $2.50 per gallon if the money was providing your children a free college education?

[RB TexLa]

12. I don't raise children and I don't recall ever complaining about the price of

gasoline

[hang a left]

14. So you got yours then...

right? I guess that is all that matters.

[TX-RAT]

17. There's a problem with that?

[Virginia Dare]

38. Not if you don't give a shit about anybody else, there isn't...n/t

[TX-RAT]

49. Interesting

I own a ranch in TX and i choose not to allow it to be taken away by the feds, and I'm accused of not giving a shit.

[Virginia Dare]

55. OP didn't give a shit about whether children got an education

or not...I don't know anything about the feds taking away your ranch.

[TX-RAT]

59. If they nationalize oil and gas

They have to go to the source.

[Marrah_G]

77. You're hitting your head against a brick wall

There are more then a few here who have mistaken the Democratic Underground with the Socialist and Communist Underground. I doubt anything you say will convince them you have a right not to have your property taken from you for "the good of the motherland".

[Virginia Dare]

92. Not necessarily "they" could nationalize the refineries...

if you mean by "they" the federal government, then you actually mean "we".

[TX-RAT]

103. "they" could nationalize the refineries...

And what would that accomplish? It's not going to lower the price of oil, but it may lower the price of oil by-products. But i don't see a Federally operated refinery being capable of refining oil cheaper than a private one.

[Virginia Dare]

106. That's where the profits are being made and the taxes

are being evaded. "They" are not reinvesting those profits in this country, they are off shoring a good deal of them in tax sheltered accounts. Anyway, I was addressing that the OP said nothing about taking your ranch away from you. That was a bit of an overdramatization on your part seems to me.

[TX-RAT]

108. Not an over-dramatization at all.

For them to nationalize oil, that means they would take ownership my minerals, same as taking ownership of my place. Now if they would like to purchase my minerals, maybe we could make a deal, but it won't be cheap.

[Bluerthanblue]

78. the cost of living in a society where poster Bolen has the

ability to "own land"- is helping to fund the cost of every generation.

You, and everyone else in society benefits by the life of today's, tomorrows, and yesterdays 'children'-

Without well educated and healthy children, who will be your doctor? your policeman? who will plow your roads, build your cars, pilot your planes and deliver your mail?

Worse yet for those so enamored with 'my' optics, who will give you a piece of themselves in exchange for 'your' paper money- 'oil' or 'mineral' wealth?

What good is 'your' oil if no refiners, automobile workers, car salesmen, tanker-truck drivers, gas station owners, tire manufacturers, car repairmen, road construction etc. people exist, because SOCIETY said "I got mine, I don't have kids, I shouldn't have to contribute jack squat for the betterment of 'someone Else's' "child"!!!

My late father made sure his offspring understood this vital lesson.

Who will keep "your land" safe from those who would come in and take what they want? You cannot do it alone- We all have a debt to pay humanity, and the future- when we get so MY optic, and selfish that we refuse to acknowledge or honor this debt, we are ushering in the end of mankind.

[TX-RAT]

16. benefit to all of Americans?

How can turning millions of people involved in the oil and gas industry, into public employees, be beneficial. Let the feds have the oil and gas and you'll see 5.00 gas real quick. Their not very efficient.

[RB TexLa]

18. You have the post office wanting to protect the delivery of junk mail

to keep their profits, I guess we could look forward to a quasi government oil company wanting a law requiring Sunday afternoon drives to protect their profits.

And if we thought defense department contracts are handled in a sleazy way, just wait.

[TX-RAT]

20. Well said.

[Cerridwen]

56. Not quite re: the USPS

The USPS is a hybrid of private and government design. The worst of each.

They are required to generate their own operating costs but are not allowed to make a profit. There is legislation in place which does not allow them to compete in the 'open market.' An example, they need planes in order to compete with companies such as UPS and FedEx. The government said, no dice. Wanna bet who was behind that legislation? So they had to cut a deal with FedEx - their competitor - in order to have access to planes in order to compete with UPS and FedEx.

Either they are a private corporation and are allowed to compete and profit (watch those rates go up then) or they need to be a fully governmentally funded entity.

So, they are currently fighting to maintain their operating costs and operations which require the contracts they have with private industry - NOT profits.

edit: for FedEx in place of UPS as 'deal' partner for air delivery

[RB TexLa]

61. Ok, then fighting to maintain their income

It's still saying you can't request to not receive certain kind of services from us because we need that to maintain our income.

And of course with the post office, they don't HAVE to compete with UPS and FedEx.

[Cerridwen]

68. No one HAS to compete in the 'market place'

Of course a business may sit back and watch their competitor acquire their business and income. I'm pretty sure the business dies if it does not compete.

Maybe you were thinking of something other than the USPS sitting back and watching its business go elsewhere thereby insuring it has even less revenue and monies for operation?

[KansDem]

30. Where have you been the last couple of decades?

I've heard that "Let the feds have the (insert national resource here) and you'll see (insert outrageous price here) real quick" argument since the 1960s and 1970s. I'm old enough to remember when the government couldn't do anything right. "Ohhh-ohh, do you really want the government to oversee that?" became the mantra of conservatives then, and neo-conservatives now. How many times have we heard the slogan from Republics running for office say, "Elect me and I'll run government like a business!" KYYYY-rist! I remember that claptrap going back 40 years! Well, we let government be run like a business and what do we have now? Take a look at Iraq, take a look at New Orleans, take a look at health care, at energy policy, at education, etc. etc. etc. I think we've had enough of "government run like a business." It simply doesn't work, except for a chosen few. Time for a change...

How can turning millions of people involved in the oil and gas industry, into public employees, be beneficial.--Well for starters, they'd be accountable to the American people and not the Saudis.

[TX-RAT]

36. Where have you been the last couple of decades?

On this ranch making a pretty good living. With no help whatsoever from the feds.

[KansDem]

43. So this is all about "you?"

Sorry, I thought we were debating the pros and cons of business vs. government in regard to addressing the needs of the American people. I must have stumbled into the "I'm hunkering down on my ranch in Texas and the Hell with the rest of you" thread.

Sorry. Never been there, never done that. Can't contribute...

[TX-RAT]

69. Damn right it's about me.

Especially when people think i should give up all I've worked for, and put it in the hands of the Federal Government.

[KansDem]

80. With the help of the Feds?

I should give up all I've worked for, and put it in the hands of the Federal Government."

Looks like the new Speaker of the House is set to eliminate the big oil subsidies:

What few caught during the campaign was Pelosi's promise to take away Big Oil subsidies in that first 100 hours, and apply them to alternative energy R & D and production. She campaigned in all these areas -- I think she was in Minnesota about 5 times, yes, visiting the cities, but also taking time to go fund raise and deliver nice DCCC checks to the candidates in Greater Minnesota and in Northern and Eastern Iowa. It was all under the Radar, and assuming she can pull off the elements in the 100 hours promise -- this is a major league plan to move off imported oil, and both grow and blow our own. She has all the ducks set up in a row. If she is smart about it, she probably can liberate four more congressional districts from Republicans in 2008, because the interests of those districts are to be part of Energy Central, but the technology is already there and just needs the kick-start of all those big oil subsidies, and the kind of programs Collin Peterson can quickly move through his committee, the House and Senate. I suspect Bush will grit teeth and sign. We elected this possibility on Tuesday, but I have heard Pelosi talk about the plan in detail at the Humphrey Institute, and she really knows what she is about. Trust a San Francisco ultra liberal to comprehend the politics of making alternative energy a heavily invested big business on the high plains.
Next Hurrah

You have either directly or indirectly received the benefit of Big Government's oil subsidies, either by receiving such subsidies yourself or selling to a corporation (like Exxon-Mobile) who can buy your commodity due to such subsidies, so in essence you are already a "public employee." As is said, "the times they are a'changing. Privatizing the public sector has failed; playing kissy-face with the Saudis has failed. I suggest you start investing in windmills.

[Bluerthanblue]

79. who do you think BUYS what you raise

on your 'ranch'???

What kind of a 'living' would you have if everyone had the mind-set you do?

[TX-RAT]

111. The local town people.

None of my cows have went to sale in the last 10 years, all were sold locally.

[dysfunctional press]

72. no problem- but you will have to pay an export tariff, of course...

:evilgrin:

[Telly Savalas]

64. If fair market value would be paid to those who currently

control the resources, then the government would break even on the deal unless it could extract the resources in a more cost effective manner than private parties can. Where the added efficiencies be that generate enough revenue to support the health care system of 300 million people?

Wouldn't it make more sense to emulate all the other industrialized countries with universal health care and more robust social services, and simply impose a more progressive tax system?

[Skidmore]

6. The land does not belong to any of us...the planet allows us to

live on it for a brief while and it remains. If we are to share in the bounty, then we should share equitably.

[TX-RAT]

7. My land belongs to me, you go buy your own land.

[Bluerthanblue]

81. a truer statement would be hard to find- but

truth is often uncomfortable-

Funny how the same statement can be seen so differently based on what end of the 'have/have-not' scale one stands on.

Society only works when 'we' trumps 'me'-

[KittyWampus]

51. Mineral rights seldom belong to the people who own land

[TX-RAT]

66. Usually belongs to prior owners.

It's rare to buy land with full minerals anymore.

[endarkenment]

84. Your land?

Almost all energy resource extraction is from 'our land' not your backyard.

[TX-RAT]

98. My back yard is 3 square miles,.

Other than off shore and federal lands, most of the production comes from privately owned property. There are 37 oil producing states, 1000's of independent oil company's and millions of property owners, in the US.

[endarkenment]

102. The oil and gas resources under your land

have already been nationalized. They are not yours. You own the surface and you own extraction rights for other minerals, but oil and gas resources are leased from the federal government not from you.

[TX-RAT]

104. You are so wrong.

When i bought this land 26 years ago, i also purchased the minerals.

[endarkenment]

109. Minerals. In most states that does not include gas and oil.

"The lease provides the right to use as much of the leased land as is necessary to develop oil and gas resources. The lessee and his or her operator cannot build a house on the land, farm the land, or remove minerals from the leased land other than oil and gas (CFR Lease Rights 2004, BLM Instructions 2004). However, in most states, if the surface of land is owned by another party and oil and gas companies lease the mineral rights from the federal government, the companies do not have to receive permission from the surface owner before beginning operations (OGAP 2004)."


http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/part2.php

[TX-RAT]

110. That has nothing to do with my situation.

I own both the surface and the minerals on this place, and some minerals on others.

[iverglas]

99. Do you have oil and gas on your land?

If not -- why are you identifying your interests with the oil companies'?

Why not identify your interests with your fellow members of the public who are in need of what oil and gas revenues could buy, instead?

[RB TexLa]

105. Yes I have oil and gas on land that I own and mineral rights to land I don't own

Think of what all needs could be served by the government owning the television and film industry.

[iverglas]

107. one could think of that, I guess

Think of what all needs could be served by the government owning the television and film industry.

It's just that some people actually see a difference between a natural resource and a manufactured product / generated service.

I gotta admit that I'm not familiar with how things are done down there. Up here, provincial governments collect royalties on extracted resources. E.g.:

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/842.asp

Some say not enough:
http://www.vueweekly.com/articles/default.aspx?i=4353

I gather than happens down there too.

http://txtell.lib.utexas.edu/stories/p0002-full.html
-- where the oil-for-schools idea comes from, I guess.



Here's an interesting Texas fellow I ran across in my googling of this stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Yarborough

Historically, Texas had been a one-party state. Democrats would win every statewide office, nearly all of the congressional delegation, and large majorities in the state legislature. Thus, general elections were formalities, and the real battles took place in the Democratic primaries between the conservative wing (pre-presidency Lyndon Baines Johnson, Governor Allan Shivers, John Connally), and the liberal wing (with which Yarborough identified), which was more in line with the national party.

... In office, Ralph Yarborough was a very different kind of Southern senator. He refused to sign the Southern Manifesto opposing integration and supported national Democratic goals of more funding for health care, education, and the environment. Himself a veteran, he worked to expand the GI Bill of Rights to cold war veterans.

... In 1964, Yarborough again won the primary without a runoff and went on to general election victory with 56.2 percent in LBJ's 1964 Democratic landslide. His Republican opponent was future president George H.W. Bush who attacked Yarborough as a left-wing demagogue and for his vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yarborough denounced Bush as an extremist to the right of that year's GOP nominee for president Barry M. Goldwater and as a rich easterner and a carpetbagger trying to buy a Senate seat. It has since been learned that then Governor Connally was covertly aiding Bush instead of party nominee Yarborough against President Johnson's wishes by teaching voters how to vote split ticket.

Although Yarborough supported Johnson's domestic agenda, he went public with his criticism of Johnson's foreign policy and the Vietnam War after Johnson announced his retirement. Yarborough supported Robert F. Kennedy until his assassination, then supported Eugene McCarthy until his loss in Chicago, and finally backed Hubert Humphrey for President in the pivotal campaign of 1968. In 1969, Senator Yarborough became chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

... He died in 1996 in Austin, and was buried in the Texas State Cemetery (the Arlington of Texas). Ralph Yarborough left a legacy in the modernization of the state of Texas and achieved political power at a peak of Texas's national power during the Johnson years. Yarborough was combative with the dominant industries of oil and gas, always pushing for petroleum's fair share of the public burden.

Legacy

Yarborough also was one of the last of the New Deal Democrats and liberals in a conservative southern state. The window of opportunity for a liberal in Texas to reach such a high office was narrow, between the Great Depression and the Great Society. Yarborough represented this brief political moment, both preceded and followed by conservatives (like Phil Gramm) and reactionaries (like "Pappy" O'Daniel). Ralph Yarborough is remembered as the acknowledged "patron saint of Texas liberals." Yarborough easily makes the list of greatest conservationists from Texas with his success at making into protected parkland Padre Island, the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Big Thicket (the last one after he left the Senate). Supporters and former aides that rose to prominence include Jim Hightower, Ann Richards, and Garry Mauro.

Ah, the good old days, when there were people in public life in the US who actually worked in the public interest, and a public composed of people who didn't always put their own interests above the public's.

[T Wolf]

3. If only those with power had the benefit of all as their focus. But

the republic philosophy is "All for one and one is me" and they will never care for others.

This is, ahem, a pipe dream. They will not give up power willingly.


Addition - if only the government would not SUBSIDIZE the robber barons to lessen/eliminate the financial "risk" of their investments, we could probably get most (or all) of what we need. Not only are they robbing us, they are using our tax dollars to pay the thieves.

[redqueen]

8. I think I like the way you're thinking!

:thumbsup:

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. What do I think? I think Hell will freeze over first before any of the above happens.

[cdnwannabe]

10. Well, Chavez is nationalizing resources in Venezuela, and BushCo...

is all but screaming bloody murder about it. So I don't think we should hold our breaths for something like that. I'm happy for the people of Venezuela, however.

[hang a left]

13. I don't think that my post indicated I was holding my breath.

I brought up a subject for discussion and asked a question.

[cdnwannabe]

23. And I am glad you did....

it's the kind of discussion I appreciate but not many, even on DU, wish to discuss. People are afraid of many things even remotely socialistic.

[pampango]

24. Welcome to DU, cdnwannabe.

I saw a post elsewhere that Chavez is threatening now to nationalize the grocery industry as well. Some who have no self-interest in the extractive resource industry might view it as a first step to a larger program of nationalization.

[cdnwannabe]

52. And thanks for the welcome, pampango!

I certainly think the grocery industry should at least be regulated. We've seen recently what can happen with little oversight.

[hang a left]

58. I apologise for being rude.

Welcome to DU as well.
:hi:

[cdnwannabe]

76. No apology necessary, hang a left!

I enjoy and appreciate your input!

[TX-RAT]

11. My minerals belong to me.

[hang a left]

15. You obviously can't envision a better plan for our country and

all that live in it.

[TX-RAT]

19. I envisioned owning a ranch and raising cattle.

I think it's a great plan and has worked well for over 26 years.

[hang a left]

21. Well that is fine.

Why would you object to being paid fair market value for the deposits on your land? You wouldn't want to sell to someone in the US, but if they were from somewhere else no problem??? Even if it was a plan to benefit all citizens of this country. I can't wrap my head around that one.

[TX-RAT]

27. I receive fair market value now.

And I'll never see it again if the feds get involved.

What would you consider fair market value for a barrel of crude, from my place?
1%
3%
5%
10%

[uncle ray]

82. what does oil have to do wtih cattle?

i grew up on a farm, that's what we call them in the midwest, not as prestigious sounding as a ranch, but i don't recall oil wells on the farm being a requisite to raising cattle. i guess you do it different in Texas.

:shrug:

in the unlikely event that our natural resources were nationalized, i doubt you, the little guy, would see much difference at your end. the same companies will still do the work, they'd just be doing it as gov't contractors instead of private contractors.

[TX-RAT]

100. not as prestigious sounding as a ranch,

I have a hard time calling it a ranch myself, it's only 3 sections.


(i don't recall oil wells on the farm being a requisite to raising cattle.)

Who said it was? When i bought this place i also bought the full mineral rights.

[rman]

86. What makes it your minerals?

[TX-RAT]

101. You purchase them with the property if available.

[rman]

113. Do you think the government should sell

land containing large amounts of resources to private owners?

For all i know most of the land (and territorial waters) that contain large amounts of resources is not private property.

[TX-RAT]

116. Any land held by the government should not be sold.

No problem with them leasing, which is what they do already.

(For all i know most of the land (and territorial waters) that contain large amounts of resources is not private property)

Not sure in other states but in TX most of the oil and gas on land is privately held. 90% of all land in TX is private ownership.

[Unvanguard]

22. Everything belongs to the people.

Property beyond basic personal possessions is simply theft - not of other people's property, but of their rights, their autonomy, their dignity, their independence, and their just portion.

That said, putting the wealth into the hands of the centralized and hierarchical apparatus of the state is hardly the best implementation of this principle. Instead, its control should be put directly into the hands of the people.

[T Wolf]

25. It is very sad to see so many responses on this topic saying that they

do not care about their neighbors. It is all about their own welfare (that they are more than willing to take gubmint subsidies for) and to hell with everyone else.

Such greed and inhumanity belongs on that other site - not here.

With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?

[hang a left]

31. My thoughts as well.

Always remember that only people advocating for the democratic party are allowed to post on this site. There are many who are not liberal.

[RB TexLa]

33. A bit backwards, I don't know what subsidies you think I get

it's more like severance tax, property tax and school tax on the land itself, income tax (2 out of 3 states) and federal income tax. If there are government subsidies I'm supposed to get someone must be pretty quick stealing that check.

[TX-RAT]

42. Let me know when you get your check

I'll be looking in the mail for mine.

[hang a left]

47. Yours and other posts on this thread really don't address the ? I asked in the OP

My one and only question was; "What else could be done with the money?" I was just trying to discuss that topic. Several responses are just flame bait and people wanting to argue. Let us not hijack the thread with this type of discussion.

However, since we have gone off-topic; what type of arrangement would you find amenable to the resourses on your property?

[pampango]

54. Perhaps if the OP had simply asked

"What else could be done with the money?" without specifying where the large pot of money would come from, the answers would be more what you were looking for.

If I raised that same question and stated that the money would come from selling Alaska back to the Russians, there might be few people commenting on the wisdom of the sale rather than concentrating of what we could do with all of the money.

[RB TexLa]

57. What we have now

I pay a very fair share of taxes to governments. If there is a need for funding for government programs, then we need to adjust the rate of taxes, there are some things government has to do and we elect government officials to best oversee that. We don't elect them to overtake and run private businesses.

Your question is never ending. What could be done if the government took over agriculture? All transportation industry? All hotel industry? The movie and television industry? All of the financial industry?

There is no way to talk about what could be done with the money raised from government owning all movie and television without talking about all the concerns people would have with the government owning and controlling that industry. The same applies to the energy industry. The people on this thread talking about the right's of private land owners is just the tip of the iceberg on the problems.

[Bluerthanblue]

83. do you raise all your own feed? do you 'vet' your own herd?

who markets your beef? what roads do they truck over?
who is paying to be sure your cattle don't contract anthrax, testing for 'mad cow' enforcing oversight at our borders to be sure no contaminated animals bring in diseases???

If you think the 'fees' YOU pay, as an individual cover all the costs of these and many other services necessary for your to make your "pretty good living", you got another THINK coming.

My own personal funds go to pay for parts of the services which allow you to 'own your ranch'- as does the funds of every citizen of this country. It is part of the cost of LIVING IN A SOCIETY- without 'society'- you have no market for your cattle. No people who enable YOU to be a 'rancher'. I don't begrudge paying for your ability to be a cattle rancher. I do begrudge you the 'attitude' you are championing.

You want to live for you, and you alone? Try some desert island. You might want to be sure and bring along a ball to keep you company-

[RB TexLa]

94. What herd? I have no livestock

what are you talking about?

[Bluerthanblue]

96. sorry, I guess I must have gotten you and TX-Rat

confused.
Is your 'ranch' an oil one then?

[RB TexLa]

97. no ranch either, just property and mineral rights to property here and there

[cdnwannabe]

44. I agree, T Wolf....

but it also demonstrates the wide range of views and opinions that DUers have. Of course, I've never understood the hyper-individualism in american society

[Xithras]

70. Look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Very relevant in discussions like these, in that it describes how people think in situations like this.

For people like me, people who are relatively safe economically, concepts like resource nationalization threaten our basic safety need.

In order: Our most important worry is safety and survival. Our number 1 psychological concerns are things like food, water, and breathing.

The second most important group is safety. Protection of our own health, our own morality, our own jobs and economic concerns.

When both of those are satisfied, we move into the third tier, which is love and belonging. Love of family, friendship.

The forth level is esteem. Concern for community, hope that we will be important to the community, self-confidence, respect, etc.

The top level of the hierarchy is self-actualization. These are things like beauty, creativity, inclusiveness, etc.

The first level is more important to most people than the top level. Few people worry about being creative when they're being strangled. Relevant to this discussion, the second level always takes precedence over the fourth. Concern for our personal economic stability is more important to most people than concern for the community. People are willing to help the communities economic condition only as long as it doesn't harm their own families economic security.

Not greed, basic human psychology.

[demrabble]

26. The Resources Belong To All Of Us

The resources you mention -- oil, gas, minerals, etc., belong to all of us.

It's just am outrage that they are "owned" by a hnadful of corrupt corporations that use them for profit.

They belong to all of us, and should be nationalized.

[TX-RAT]

29. Do you have any idea who owns the oil and gas in the US.

[demrabble]

32. Exxon-Mobil

and other huge corporations.

Rich people.

[TX-RAT]

37. The majority of all oil and gas is owned by farmers and ranchers

[demrabble]

46. Rich People

Like I said -- rich people and big corporations like Exxon-Mobil.

Anyway, regardless of who currently owns the majority of all oil and gas, it SHOULD be owned by ALL OF US.

[TX-RAT]

50. Like I said -- rich people

I know many farmers and ranchers who would disagree.

[KansDem]

60. Really? Perhaps you're getting ripped off by the likes of Exxon-Mobile

According to D&B Business Rankings for 2006, Exxon-Mobile was numero uno in sales with $298,035,000,000--that's $298 billion--an impressive amount even in Texas standards! Oh, and Chevron was fifth with $155,300,000,000. So between the two of them, they reaped $453,335,000,000. So how much of that did you get? I'm curious, who sets the selling price: The "farmers and ranchers?" Or is it the oil cartels?

Used to be a lot of cricket pumps working around here...until the 1970s when your cohorts?/competitors? in Saudi Arabia decided to muck-up the gas and energy markets with their "energy crisis." Then a lot of cricket pumps stopped working. I used to drive around Kansas and see a lot of idle cricket pumps. Apparently, and you should know more about this than I do, the price of oil was so low, it just didn't profit the "farmers and ranchers" to pump oil. Not until the price went back up. How did you manage during that time? Was there any "fed" relief given to "farmers and ranchers" who had idle oil pumps on their land?

[TX-RAT]

63. who sets the selling price:

The market.

Mineral owner receive leasing fee's and a percentage of the barrels or MCF's sold. They don't receive subsidies. When the prices goes down, so does their income.

[Virginia Dare]

112. So basically you're getting screwed like the rest of us...

as by all rights, if you go by the law of supply and demand, oil and gas should be ten fold what it is now, but people would stop buying it then, wouldn't they? They'd start screaming for alternative fuel sources wouldn't they?

[endarkenment]

87. Surface might be privately owned.

gas and oil resources are generally federal property. In addition much of the actually productive sites are offshore (the gulf) or public lands (alaska).

"The lease provides the right to use as much of the leased land as is necessary to develop oil and gas resources. The lessee and his or her operator cannot build a house on the land, farm the land, or remove minerals from the leased land other than oil and gas (CFR Lease Rights 2004, BLM Instructions 2004). However, in most states, if the surface of land is owned by another party and oil and gas companies lease the mineral rights from the federal government, the companies do not have to receive permission from the surface owner before beginning operations (OGAP 2004)."
http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/part2.php

What we don't get from our public ownership of these energy resources is a fair share of the profits derived from extracting them.

[rman]

89. The majority of US oil is off-shore

under a few km of water and a couple of km of bedrock.

On-shore oil production has been declining since it peaked in the 70's.

[pampango]

41. You know that everyone thinks that huge corporations own

everything (and I'm not just talking about just natural resource deposits.)

They (and "they" are evil) own everything. You obviously are having a difficult time imagining how much better life would be if the federal government owned everything and we all worked for it.;) One huge employer who not only holds your job in his/her hands, but exercises political control as well.

[pampango]

114. While you are nationalizing, shouldn't you go after farms as well?

After all farmers use the natural resources of soil and the nutrients therein to grow crops.

[gravity]

28. We don't need to nationalize industries

to provide free medical care and free college education. Just cut out the pork in the defense budget and Iraq war, and you should be able to pay for these things. Raising the tax rate for the top income bracket would do it too.

[hang a left]

34. I agree with that. Just imagine if we could do both.

What would it look like here? We would have a booming middle class. Poverty would be reduced drastically. People would not go to bed at night hungry or cold. There is a better way.

[cdnwannabe]

39. I love it, hang a left, but then...

I'm a European or Canadian at heart. I've never understood the hyper-individualism in american society, and I grew up with it!

[cdnwannabe]

35. Those things would work too, but also too socialistic...

for conservatives, and a lot of everyday americans too. Even some folks right here at DU. At least the taxes part, anyway.

[gravity]

45. I disagree

I'm just saying that we should raise to the level what Clinton had in the 90's, maybe a couple percentage points higher for the top bracket. Nothing too extreme and its a lot less socialistic than nationalizing industries.

[cdnwannabe]

48. Well, that much is certain....

but will anyone in congress besides Kucinich ever address this?

[BreweryYardRat]

65. Bingo.

That's the solution right there, and something I've advocated myself more than a time or two.

[mongo]

40. We need to at least regulate them

and fix prices and profits. It worked for the electric industry for decades, then they deregulated and California got screwed.

These are national resources. I disagree with the people who just want to say "they belong to all of us" -- people deserve to get paid for the resources under their land.

But these companies are now monopolies -- necessary to the public good, and as such need to be overseen and regulated.

[Virginia Dare]

53. I agree with you...

the real crux of the problem is the oil and gas companies are sheltering a large chunk of their profits off-shore, coupled with the obscene tax breaks granted in the energy bill passed by the Repuke Congress last year, they are paying far less back to the people than they should. They are also not reinvesting their profits, but instead are hoarding cash in anticipation of the eventual collapse of the industry. It's a train wreck waiting to happen.

[tjwash]

62. Screw that.

Call me cynical, or just call me a fucking asshole, but do you really want the likes of these bastards that are currently in charge to have absolute say in what we do with our natural resources, and what we do with the money made from them? The system we have isn't perfect, but it's a far cry from concentrating that much sheer power in the hands of a very few individuals.

Can you imagine getting a knock on your door and being told that you and everyone on your entire block have to move because they just found a natural gas field under your neighborhood? Can you imagine having to go up to the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney and find any sympathy from them after your property just got seized?

You see right now what happens when the Government has control of the military. Rampant cronyism, no-bid contracts, half a trillion a year getting funneled to their pals at Bechtel SAIC, and Halliburton, and a massive monster of a military industrial complex that needs to be fed with bloody wars every 10 years or so. And the MIC has only been around since the 50's. Imagine big oil power, and the military blatently under the same roof.

[Xithras]

73. Most socialists choose to ignore that thought.

Imagine the utopia. A nationalized, centralized United States economic system, with free medical care controlled by the government, all resources owned by the government, all major industries controlled by the government, and the government having the ability to take and reassign property as it sees fit, so long as it "benefits the community".

Now imagine George Bush in charge of that nation for eight years.

[Unvanguard]

75. Um, no, actually we don't.

Even the Leninists these days advocate a state far more democratic than the present one, where someone like George W. Bush would not have anywhere near the power he has in ours.

[Bluerthanblue]

85. what is more-

* only has 'the power' he does, because of rampant capitalism- cronyism- corporate greed.

If there were a chance to have a truly socialist society, there would never be the disgusting imbalance between the 'rich' and the 'poor' that 'free'- market societies inevitably fall apart because of.

[Virginia Dare]

93. Exactly a truly free press owned by the people..

would never have allowed a George Bush to usurp power in this country.

[rman]

91. If it'd be a true democracy, Bush and the likes would never be in power

and we would not have removed, weakened and privatized most of the social services over the past couple of decades.

[rman]

90. These bastards already are in control - "revolving door politics":

the interests of big money and the interests of big politics are one and the same, for the most part.
Between lobbying, fraud, corruption and revolving door politics, big corporations usually get their way with government policies and regulations.

The problem is that big corporations rather than "we the people" control what is supposed to be *our* government.

[endarkenment]

95. "these bastards that are currently in charge "

would have to be thrown out on their fat asses and replaced by good people and we would have to reform our system to be truly democratic before any such thing could happen. So the answer to your question "do you really want the likes of these bastards ... to have absolute say" is no, but not in the way you mean.

[Odin2005]

67. All vital industries should be nationalized.

In all other industries the corporations should be transformed into co-ops.

[Zynx]

74. Can't nationalize without shareholder compensation.

Ideas like this are worthless.

[Hippo_Tron]

88. No thanks, gives the government too much power

I'm for a more middle of the road solution like breaking up the oil cartels and forcing them to actually compete with each other via anti-trust legislation.

[Thothmes]

115. nationalization

Lets see now, medical care, education, all operated by the same government that operates FEMA and the DOD. Sorry, would think that should scare the hell our of everyone. Just remember, Republicans can and do get elected in this country. Would you like the see the entire country's educational system operated by the likes of the Kansas or Mississippi School boards. How about a health care system administered by the folks like those at Homeland Defense.