News -> INDReporter FRI, SEP 9 11:10AM by Heather Miller

This Week in Crazy: Landry brings the sign, forgets the comb

Jeff.Landry032
This closely cropped photo appeared in
today's Advocate.

It’s rare when a screen name like “kindmaryjane” offers the most insightful analysis of DC politics, but this anonymous Times-Picayune online reader had it right when responding to U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry’s sign-carrying stunt during President Obama’s job speech Thursday night: “Keep it classy, New Iberia.”

Landry, the TEA Party-backed Republican who represents Louisiana’s 3rd Congressional District, sat quietly among his colleagues as the president outlined his new $450 billion jobs package, then at one point during the speech held up a sheet of paper that read “DRILLING = JOBS.”

National media outlets have speculated that Landry’s childish act was only a minor infraction in terms of congressional decorum, but with Landry sitting just two rows behind the now infamous Rep. Joe Wilson (“You Lie!”), one analyst tells The Times-Picayune that GOP leaders who advised Republicans to respond in civility “couldn’t have been pleased.”

Landry tells The T-P Friday that “the poster was simple and concise but it is a much better and more thorough plan to create jobs than Obama’s speech:” 

Landry spokesman Millard Mulé said the congressman did not let the GOP leadership know in advance of his plans.

An official with the House Parliamentarian’s office said that no one at the podium noticed the sign. Had it been displayed during normal House debate, a member could have raised an objection that the sign wasn’t consistent with the decorum expected of members and put the question of whether the sign was appropriate to a vote.

Perhaps Landry’s three-word “thorough” plan to stimulate job growth could have been better relayed to the president on June 1 when Obama invited congressional Republicans to the White House. Oh, wait. Landry was the only House Republican to decline Obama’s invitation.

Read the Times-Pic’s coverage here.


Comments (55)add
...
written by Independent Voter , September 09, 2011 - 05:06 pm
This is typical Republican practice. It SOP tactics to hijack policy and move towards just bashing the other side. Im not a Republican nor a Democrat. Im a US citizen who wants the government to practice what they preach.
...
written by Joe Politico , September 09, 2011 - 05:20 pm
Typical, idiotic and another pock on the eye of La.
While we're on the subject of jobs.... once Bachmann brings the price of gas down to $2.00 a gallon I wonder how many lay offs there well be in the oil patch.
...
written by babyboomer , September 09, 2011 - 05:34 pm
What a sophomoric act! But then, he is Vitter's apprentice, and Vitter wanted to stay at home for a Saints party rather than do his job. Voters, pay attention.
...
written by EmbarrasedRepublican , September 09, 2011 - 05:51 pm
Friday, September 9, 2011
Congressman Jeff Landry
206 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Jeff Landry,

I am a Republican from North Carolina. This is the first letter I have ever written to any public figure.

Before last night's address to Congress, I had never heard of you. Now I have heard of you, and I cannot imagine a single thing you could ever do or say that would allow me to respect you in any way. You have diminished yourself, my party, and our Congress.

Your silly and juvenile act showed an enormous disrespect for this Country, as well as the decorum and civility (what's left) of the United States Congress and the Office of the President.

Unfortunately, I am sure you will receive a lot of "positive feedback" on that prank, encouraging your act like a twelve year old boy whose buddies thought it was funny to put boogers on the teacher's seat.

But let me ask, what did you hope to accomplish by this immature act? Can you honestly say that your actions did ANYTHING positive for the American People? Did you add ANYTHING of value to the current debate? Will your little sign (not its message), presented at that particular moment, help one single American get back to work?

Notice I haven't even mentioned the content of your message - it could not matter less what that sign said. Please don't confuse my disgust and objections to your disrespectful act w/ the message you hoped to express. But rest assured, message received - just not the one you intended to convey.

Your prank did accomplish some things. It got your name in the national news. So now we’ve heard of you. Far more importantly, you’ve taken us just one tiny step closer to the kind of dysfunctional government activity and anything-goes-disrespect we see in some third world countries.

Before long, between you and Joe Wilson, we'll have shoes flying at Senator Boehner or President Obama during some speech. You should be ashamed of yourself, and know that you have contributed to the further diminishing of the perception of the United States Congress.

Are you proud of that? I hope not.

Instead of wasting taxpayer time and money printing out silly signs intended for the singular purpose of attempting to embarrass the President of the United States and a most inappropriate time, quit throwing rocks and step up to do something positive for the United States.


An embarrassed American,

p.s. I just thought of one thing that would afford a tiny modicum of respect for you – apologize to the people of the United States.

...
written by ragin_cajun , September 09, 2011 - 06:01 pm
But, what about the point that Landry was actually trying to make--that the Federal Government's refusal to open up drilling in new areas for environmental reasons is one more area where there will be little "economic growth", or "new jobs".

Drill a new well, that's drill pipe that needs to be made, steel, casing strings and production strings, more steel, drilling mud, rig crews, service hands, transportation, on and on.

Start drilling wells, lotsa money gets spent, gets made, lotsa people get hired, etc.

Landry's got a point. Drilling DOES equal jobs. So if the administration is so worried about jobs, why don't they open up ANWAR, the East Coast, West Coast, Florida coast, to drilling?

Tell you what else would generate a TON of jobs, and UNION jobs, too. How about if the federal government offers a 2 year moratorium on environmental regulations and permitting for NEW REFINERIES! That would employ one hell of a lot of welders, pipefitters, engineers, draftsmen, electricians, etc. MOST of those jobs would be UNION jobs, too. In poor areas. Perfect for Obama's "base".


...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 09, 2011 - 06:46 pm
Vitter did er and then he smithe er.
The Oil Patch will not falter
Bachmann will never leave the gate
Some consequences cannot be altered
Bachmann is regarded third rate
...
written by Mo , September 09, 2011 - 08:01 pm
Dear "Embarassed",

I respect your comments tremendously. I feel I must tell you, your comments will in no way move this man to hold himself in check in any way. He is running for another office in the great state of Louisiana and he will do anything to get attention. He has aligned himself with another Repub who must be an embarassment to you, David Vitter, the senator who was frolicking with prostitutes in D.C. when he should have been either at home with his wife & 4 daughters, or performing his political duties. I am embarassed to say these are our elected representation in Louisiana.

Landry will do anything to get elected and I am sorry to say, I feel quite sure he will get elected. It seems as if Louisiana Republicans will vote for any member of that party, no matter how despicable.
I wish your comments would have an effect, but I am not hopeful of that, and I surely do not expect an apology. I'm really afraid someone will award him a medal.


...
written by holeinthedonut8 , September 09, 2011 - 10:27 pm
Embarassed, this is fairly typical of our interpersonal skills here in La. A little hick from the 49th or 50th state's backwater district tries to upstage the President with a school yard gimmick and he'll be hailed as a strong conservative who stands up for what he believes. This kind of stuff works around here-hence the 49th or 50th
...
written by yadumonde , September 10, 2011 - 04:00 am
The man's a total embarrassment.
...
written by Hope , September 10, 2011 - 11:01 am
It calls to mind, "You lie with dogs, you're gonna get fleas." Mr. Landry's got fleas. I think I knew he's up to this kind of stunt, but to see it was disheartening anyway. I actually gave Mr. Landy more credit, believing he didn't need to resort to slimy tricks such as his sign. I guess it is true, Landry will do anything for attention. I really do not think Landry has the mental capacity, much less moral compass, for the job he has now. I don't believe Mr. Landry has the ability to accomplish anything for Louisiana except more embarassment.

...
written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , September 10, 2011 - 07:02 pm
To the Group Here:

I have two objections with the oil & gas industry:

1st] They do not create enough jobs when these traded commodities are high price or low price! They generate presently about 10.4 million jobs in the U.S.; they should be generating 25 million jobs at least! The consumer is blackmailed by Michels dictum: The "iron law of oligarchy"! [Read Robert Michels treatise, "Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy" (1911)]

2nd] These energy industries are too obsolete; they are doing irreversible damage to Planet Earth. We are trending towards a planet like Venus in our Solar System. Furthermore, they have corrupted our political, legal and judicial systems. They are anti-democratic, as well as anti-capitalistic! [The last comment was put in as "red meat" for ragin_cajun to slobber over!]
...
written by the tea party , September 10, 2011 - 07:13 pm
I will say that Boustany always acts with dignity.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 11, 2011 - 10:41 am
What he did do is get $ 10,000,000.00 dollars worth of free publicity to a current economic problem which windmill flaps is ignoring here in "THE 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50, BACKWATER STATES, that is... the whole of the Gulf Coast Moratorium Oil drilling !
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 11, 2011 - 10:42 am
Boustany does as directed, zombie-like.
...
written by choice cuts , September 11, 2011 - 12:11 pm
For reasons such as this, Louisiana will forever be stuck in its own little "plantation state" world. Seems that every really large auto industry or high tech industry that comes along goes to places like Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. They sniff around the bayou state and Jindal bends over backwards with incentives, but in the end they go with some other state. Why??? I think Mr. Landry provides the answer for all to see.
...
written by Southsider , September 11, 2011 - 03:46 pm
Typical country come to town mentality. Can't fix stupid. Problem is, Landry does it on a national stage for all the USA to see just how hick this state is. Way to go Jeff.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 11, 2011 - 03:57 pm
Gaius --

" "red meat" for ragin_cajun to slobber over"

Sure, I'll be glad to play along. As soon as you write a coherent and reasoned statement of what you'd like to argue about, I'll be glad to participate.

But, reading what you've posted here so far, I don't know what to even respond to. So which point would you like to me to discuss?

1. Oil industry doesn't employ enough people.
2. European Socialist parties devolve into oligarchy
3. global warming
4. Leftist paranoia about corporations
5. The role of government in corporate corruption

Pick one, state your position, perhaps provide a few supporting points that support your position. You know, like a logical construct.
...
written by Resident , September 11, 2011 - 04:27 pm
Ragin, we all know that drilling creates jobs. So do thousands of other things. But trying to boil the issue down to "the Federal Government's refusal to open up drilling in new areas for environmental reasons" is way off the mark. Look at the Burea of Land Management, which has opened up thousands of square miles to drilling, with little or no new activity. This obsessive insistence on the relative few biologically rich areas protected from exploitation is a distraction from real issues. And by the way, offshore drilling bans are a state issue too, usually with strong local opposition regardless of party.

Environmental regulations are not the only issue with new refineries, either. The initial costs are gigantic and there is often strong local opposition there, too. Refineries don't exactly improve air and water quality.

A much better opportunity for jobs would be in shifting our energy paradigm from non-renewable fossil fuels to renewable sources. It's not a matter of if, but when. This kind of decades-long shift will produce benefits on many fronts.

Landry is an icon of the past and a symbol of the irrational hatred and complete disrespect that pervades too much of the Republican party.
...
written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , September 11, 2011 - 07:44 pm
[R]agin_cajun:

I thought I would get your blood boiling! I am going to follow the rules of How to Disagree: www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Refuting the Central Point [Level DH6].

Point No. 1: Oil industry doesn't employ enough people.

I will broaden the issue to include our complete Energy portfolio. Why did I assert that the Oil & Gas industry should be employing 25 million American jobs? I am using the Biological System as a template: 50% is Information production and exchanges; 25% is Energy; and 25% is Matter [Source of insight on my part, James Miller's 1960 treatise, "The Living System" 1,600 pages]. Energy is vital for survival. Out of our current population of 305 million Americans, How many are within the "working range"?

Point No. 2: European Socialist parties devolve into oligarchy.

When you read Robert Michels treatise, he was very sensitive about being called a "socialist." He was denied a professorship in Germany due to his Socialist tendencies. He, then, taught most of his mature life at Swiss and Italian Universities. Furthermore, his law is an evolution, not a devolution! Notice, the present income gap between the rich and the middle class in our society, represents an hierarchical evolution of these oligarchs [Greek, "the power of the few"]. Open democracies always move in this direction, unless checked by taxation and anti-trust laws. Hence, Michels dictum: the "Iron Law of Oligarchy"!

Point No. 3: Climate warming.

May I suggest the less loaded term "climate change"? The scientific debate is over. Those who deny its reality, will not believe in it, until they look up and see a Yellow sky instead of a Blue sky! The facts are beyond refutation. One merely must appeal to scientific details from a wide range of perspectives. Simply read competently produced scientific papers that have met peer review!

Point No. 4: Leftist paranoia about corporations.

This topic is not worthy of our discussion. It is rooted in ideological discord. I merely assert the obvious: there is plenty of paranoia about corporations by the Right and the Left---much of it irrelevant to our everyday lives. I will observe that the growth of consolidation [Mergers & Acquisitions] in many of our various industrial vectors [Food, Banking, Telecommunications, Energy, etc.] have not benefited the Middle Class. I think this is a non-controversial statement, and an accurate one!

Point No. 5: The role of government in corporate corruption.

Government herself has become corrupt in her duties to monitor corporate behaviour. Unless it is outright muder or theft, government is doing very little to regulate sane policies for a healthy corporate organization. Corporations are people! As such they are liable to undetected mischief, crime, and the sabotaging of others by deceit, treachery and false promises.

Lastly, I want to thank you for introducing me to the Classical Liberal economist, Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (1881-1973)! I am still reading papers from the economists you discussed (which I can find on-line). Have a good day!


...
written by ragin_cajun , September 11, 2011 - 09:23 pm
Resident --


" little or no new activity" There's been little or no new drilling activity on land in the US in the past 3-5 years? Sure about that?

" trying to boil the issue down to ....is way off the mark." Is it? So there was agreement to allow drilling off the East Coast in the Atlantic, and off the Florida coast, and to expand leasing in Federal waters off the coast of California. That is now NOT open, in FEDERAL waters, anymore. So, pray tell, if that about face in federal policy was made for some reason OTHER than environmental reasons, please...tell me what that reason was?

I understand that state governments ban drilling, too. I was discussing Federal policy because Obama and Landry are both Federal politicians.

"obsessive insistence on the relative few biologically rich areas protected from exploitation " That's why I listed areas all around the country, off every coast of America.

"Refineries don't exactly improve air and water quality" Lots of industries don't improve air and water quality. This irrational obsession with the "fossil fuel" industry that adds value, produces energy, and saves humans from lives of uncomfortable drudgery and menial labor is what I find irrational.

Also, there is often strong local SUPPORT for refineries, too. So what?

"shifting our energy paradigm" to "renewable sources". Yeah? That's great, Resident. So, name one that works--that delivers as much energy as Oil & Gas as inexpensively and efficiently. There is none.

So we should "shift our energy paradigm" to a source that is more expensive and less efficient? How do you propose to pay for that?

Also, would you have us all just completely forget the federal dollars dumped into this renewable energy pipe dream so far? I'll tell you, Resident. I like Exxon, BP, and Chevron's track record at creating jobs a lot better than the renewable energy industry's track record so far.

Finally, I think you're off your rocker if you think Jeff Landry is an icon or a symbol of anything. He's just some guy from New Iberia. I think you're pumping him up a bit, don't you?
...
written by PhilNdeBlanc , September 11, 2011 - 09:58 pm
Landry clearly stated the obvious. Obama was going blah, blah on us, has no clue. It's called lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
In 1981, we had 600+ drilling rigs in the Gulf. Now we have about 200. That doesn't include platforms. So job-wise, each rig means about 60 direct employees, and about 100 indirect employees (admin, service hands, suppliers, etc). That is just the tip of the iceberg, but we are looking at roughly 400 rigs and 64,000 jobs.
That's just in the gulf. The east coast, florida and california should be drilling. It's nice to talk about the environment and the myth of global warming, it's another to buy oil from countries that care not one whit about their environment, don't like us, and you waste oil in the process of getting it here.

...
written by running cajun , September 11, 2011 - 10:53 pm
Ref: Point #3 Global warming (climate change) is about as likely as the so called "evolution" theory, and from the same side of the isle i might add. Can anyone point to one shred of irrifutable evidense for either one?
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 11, 2011 - 11:59 pm
"Can anyone point to one shred of irrifutable evidense for either one? " Oh, God! NOOOOO!!!!! Global warming AND evolution, both hit on in one post! Stop the madness.

Let's all stay on point, kids. Let's restrict our discussion to drilling as a solution to the current unemployment problem.


...
written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , September 12, 2011 - 12:37 am
[R]agin_cajun:

I will respond tomorrow to your series of exchanges with Monsieur Resident [Who I thought made non-controversial statements] and yourself. Your comment "one shred of *irrifutable *evidense [irrefutable evidence] does not inspire confidence! Perchance, you were working at a mud rig today, and were tired mentally!
...
written by beheard , September 12, 2011 - 02:31 pm
Jeff Landry is a complete joke, and made the people of Louisiana and the GOP look like idiots. But I guess he feels "bad press", is better than none at all.
...
written by Resident , September 12, 2011 - 02:36 pm
"There's been little or no new drilling activity on land in the US in the past 3-5 years? Sure about that?"

My statement was not very clear. The BLM has opened large swaths of new land to drilling, but the rate at which the oil and gas industry is exploring and producing these lands is relatively low. My point is, there are millions of acres already open. Let's use those instead of obsessing about the relatively few biologically rich areas that are protected. But partisan hacks harp incessantly about protected land because the goal is to demonize the necessary act of protecting lands and those who support such.

"So there was agreement to allow drilling off the East Coast in the Atlantic, and off the Florida coast, and to expand leasing in Federal waters off the coast of California. That is now NOT open, in FEDERAL waters, anymore. So, pray tell, if that about face in federal policy was made for some reason OTHER than environmental reasons, please...tell me what that reason was?"

Gee, it might have had something to do with the biggest oil spill in our history. You're right, there was a deal to open more offshore waters to drilling, but then the BP spill happened. You can try to blame it on leftists, envirowackos, Democrats, whatever...but the fact is, when a catastrophe like that happens, people are not exactly thrilled to open more deep water to drilling. Ironically, this is a product of corporate corruption on government that you seem to think does not exist. The oil and gas industry had great influence on regulatory bodies and was allowed to drill in deep waters without stronger regulations (like remote blowout preventers) that exist in other deepwater areas like the North Sea and Brazil.

"This irrational obsession with the "fossil fuel" industry that adds value, produces energy, and saves humans from lives of uncomfortable drudgery and menial labor is what I find irrational."

No one is saying that using fossil fuels have not improved our lives tremendously. But as you know, they are non-renewable and as you might not know, there are all sorts of hidden costs of fossil fuels such as health hazards and pollution. One could argue that our military interventions in oil-rich states is a product of dependence on fossil fuels. And no, we cannot come close to providing all of our own oil since we use 25% of the world's oil but have only 3-5% of the world's reserves. So you can't blame that on leftists or environmental regulations either.

"Yeah? That's great, Resident. So, name one that works--that delivers as much energy as Oil & Gas as inexpensively and efficiently. There is none."

If you're talking energy per unit, yes, fossil fuels are high energy. If we're talking efficiency per unit, fossil fuels are nothing to shout about. The reason oil and gas is "efficient" in delivering energy is because the infrastructure is already there. As far as cost, oil and gas are artificially cheap due to those hidden costs I mentioned earlier, along with huge tax breaks and virtual subsidies. Corporate-government corruption has created conditions that are extremely favorable to fossil fuels.

The idea is not to replace oil and gas with a single alternative, but a multitude of alternatives. Natural gas would still be important for things like making steel. Oil is used primarily for transportation. There are already alternatives to this, and cost will come down as they are used more and more, and as infrastructure is improved. Why do you think the military is heavy-set on developing alternatives to oil? Oil ain't gonna be around forever.

"So we should "shift our energy paradigm" to a source that is more expensive and less efficient? How do you propose to pay for that?"

Not a source, but many sources. The change will come sooner or later. We can anticipate it and speed the transition with public sector spending, or we can cling to fossil fuels until they become too expensive and we enter crisis mode. Read the book "A Thousand Barrels a Second" for a very good history of energy use and the transitions that have already occurred. The price of an energy source becomes so expensive as it is depleted that a shift is forced on us, often with unfavorable side-effects.

I really can't understand why you and the partisan hacks are so vehement against the idea of this country innovating itself to energy security with new technologies such as solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, tidal, wave, etc. Besides being a leader in innovation, we would have all sorts of benefits like greatly reduced pollution and energy security.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 12, 2011 - 04:04 pm
I know this, PhilNdeBlanc has washed his hands with GOJO, more than once. I can't say the same for you apple turners. Oh and possibly, just possibily... ragin_cajun.
The rest of you, speak not ! Of, what you know not.

EMBARASSED REPUBLICAN'T : SUH, you North Carolinians have been the leaders in "CO-RUPTED Legislators along with ILLINOIS, so how can you possibly be embarrased by Landry's child-like antics, air your own laundry... couillion, yes be embarassed about being a couillion, that is more fitting, Yeah !

Resident There is no other known natural resource, besides our presently in demand fossil fuel, which could ever support these fuel burning couillions in America. Windmills, Bah Humbug, be realistic. Energy from plants, methinks better Whale Blubber, Hah. Get Real Resident...For you know not of which you speak, ya Al Gore groupie.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 12, 2011 - 04:20 pm
Resident --

" The BLM has opened large swaths of new land to drilling" The BLM has also stopped drilling projects, closed land to drilling, too. But assuming you're right, you're making the same error that every other central planner has made throughout history. Geology does not conform to the policies of bureaucrats. Oil companies have to go where the oil is, not where the government thinks it's politically expedient to "allow" them to operate.

" relatively few biologically rich areas" The entire East Coast, almost the entire West Coast, the entire Eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico? That's not relatively few, man.

"You're right, there was a deal....then the BP spill happened". So I wasn't "way off the mark", as you "characterized" my statement. Thank you for admitting that you misrepresented what I wrote.

"You can try to blame it on leftists, envirowackos, Democrats, whatever" Calm down, Resident. I haven't said anything like that. You are, once again, completely misrepresenting me and what I've written here.

"efficiency per unit"...huh?

"oil and gas are artificially cheap due to those hidden costs I mentioned earlier, along with huge tax breaks and virtual subsidies."....huh? "hidden costs"?! are you serious? "virtual subsidies"? virutal, huh? I don't accept "hidden" and "virtual" as valid supporting points in a discussion. I accept facts and figures, though, like these...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/266554-in-q1-exxon-paid-almost-1-million-per-hour-in-income-taxes

Exxon pays very high taxes. Oil and Gas industry is NOT overly profitable. I've explained this before.

" We can anticipate it and speed the transition with public sector spending, or we can cling to fossil fuels until they become too expensive and we enter crisis mode." CLASSIC false choice presented by demagogues and fear mongers. I'm not stupid, so don't try to sneak things like this into a discussion with me, Resident. There are a multitude of alternatives other than those two worst case scenarios.

So, after all that, we finally get to your position on this. You want "public sector spending" to "speed the transition". I want markets and individuals to determine if, and how fast, the "transition" will happen.

I am not against this country " innovating itself to energy security with new technologies". You have, AGAIN, misrepresented my position. What I am against, and read this very carefully, is the GOVERNMNET financing it, taxing people to do it, picking the winners and losers, and losing track of the money that was spent.

Now, back to the original point of all this. Obama could either spend BORROWED money to hire government employees (cops, firefighters, teachers) or he could spend not one red penny and announce a "regulation moratorium" on refiners/drillers/oil producers so they can increase production and build BADLY NEEDED refineries that will employ MANY poor and middle class workers. So what did he choose, and why?
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 12, 2011 - 04:43 pm
Obama could also have done both. That would have been "something for everybody".
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 12, 2011 - 05:11 pm
Obama could also have announced $600 Billion per year in cuts in government spending, starting this year. That would have bolstered confidence in the government and the US economy. Not a short term fix to unemployment, but certainly a long term positive for the business climate.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 12, 2011 - 05:13 pm
Obama could hire 10,000 federal inspectors to work offshore and monitor drilling and production in deep water, which would bolster confidence in drilling safety allowing the Feds to open new areas offshore to deep water drilling...:)
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 12, 2011 - 05:15 pm
Or, on the other hand, Obama could have announced ANOTHER $1/2 Billion loan to a poorly run solar company that employs very FEW people. According to the New York Times, almost ALL of solar panel production is automated, and it employs very few people...:)
...
written by resident2 , September 12, 2011 - 05:40 pm
Rajun Cajun: :Oil and Gas industry is NOT overly profitable:

Dude you crack me up. You are so freaking off base your on another f-ing planet.

Nobody in the history of the world has made more profit than oil companies.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm


ROFLMAO at "Regulation Moratorium" Yea, I know, why don't we just tell the oil companies they can just dump whatever crap they want into our gulf.

Boy you must have an implant in your head that goes straight to the Exxon board of directors. How brainwashed can you get?

...
written by Resident , September 12, 2011 - 06:50 pm
I noticed there were many points of mine that you even address.

Speaking of false choices, you presented a doozy in your last paragraph. And here:

"I want markets and individuals to determine if, and how fast, the "transition" will happen....
What I am against, and read this very carefully, is the GOVERNMNET financing it, taxing people to do it, picking the winners and losers, and losing track of the money that was spent."

It's not a choice between "government financing it" and markets and individuals deciding. One does not preclude the other. I understand what you mean by "picking winners and losers" and in most cases I do not favor government being involved. In a few cases, notably those of national security, public sector spending to some degree is a good thing. Large-scale, long-term issues (like energy security) need some degree of consistent and reliable funding, outside of the pitfalls and short-term profit margins of market forces.

However, by saying that you want markets and individuals to decide "if" a transition will happen, you imply that you don't even accept that a transition in our energy paradigm will be necessary, as if fossil fuels will last forever. Is that correct?

The choice of clinging to fossil fuels or transitioning to renewables is not a false choice. I'm basing this on the historical fact that we have always been forced to change our energy sources. It's no different as long as we use non-renewable resources.

You also seem bewildered at my statement that using fossil fuels has hidden costs. Are you denying that it causes significant human health effects and pollution effects on ecosystems that sustain us? Are you denying that military protection of oil resources around the world is not a cost? I know you deny that using fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, and I'm pretty sure you deny that tax codes and regulations are actually favorable to oil and gas companies. You seem to deny that multinational corporations have a large and corrupting influence on government.

I'm not even sure what you mean by a "regulation moratorium" - no new regulations or a suspension of all regulations? The latter certainly would be disastrous.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 12, 2011 - 08:01 pm

Resident --

Okay, so we're just not going to talk about employment at all anymore. I get it.

When I say I want markets to decide if and when this transition will happen, what I mean by "if" is a time sensitive thing. Oil won't last forever, nor will any other energy source. What I mean is if presented with a choice whether to transition over the next 20-40 years or not, I think markets and individuals should decide if this is reasonable. Not elected officials, bureaucrats, and committed leftists.

"The choice of clinging to fossil fuels or transitioning to renewables is not a false choice." That's not what you wrote, Resident. You offered a false choice between public funding or crisis mode.

"Regulation moratorium" is just a quick way to refer back to the post I originally made proposing ways to employ people by encouraging private industry to expand. I said in that post..."How about if the federal government offers a 2 year moratorium on environmental regulations and permitting for NEW REFINERIES! That would employ one hell of a lot of welders, pipefitters, engineers, draftsmen, electricians, etc. MOST of those jobs would be UNION jobs, too. In poor areas. Perfect for Obama's "base".

If it's OK to grant waivers from Obamacare, why is it no OK to grant waivers from other federal regulation in these trying times?

"You seem to deny that multinational corporations have a large and corrupting influence on government." I think it's the other way around...government has a large and corrupting influence on business. It's at LEAST a two way street, wouldn't you agree?

" using fossil fuels has hidden costs." I think it's very suspicious that everytime a Leftist wants to raise taxes, expand government involvement in something, or stop corporations from doing something, they always come up with speculative theories, impossible to quantify "costs", and effects on "ecosystems" that are so complex they can't be easily defined, much less studied or measured. But, I'm not bewildered that you would try to support your point with "hidden costs" and "virtual subsidies". I'm more offended that you would think me stupid enough to fall for it.

But I'll tell what DOES bewilder me, though...:) That someone would propose public spending of borrowed money to "shift our energy paradigm" in an economy like this. And then point to dubious "hidden costs" of fossil fuels, implying that if we could just "invest" in this new energy now, we'd be healthier, have less war, save the world, and have better government. It just strains credibility....it's so...UTOPIAN.

"Hello, I'm from the government. I need you to quickly and quietly give me more money so I can save the world from disease, war, and social chaos by investing in ethanol, solar panels, and wind mills".....:)

And what about the toxicity of solar panel and battery manufacture, the environmental impact of large scale wind farms, the ethanol plants, nuke power fuel is MUCH more rare than fossil fuels, etc. Maybe this wouldn't sound so half-baked if there ACTUALLY WAS AN ALTERNATIVE! There isn't one, yet. So you're talking about public spending on something that literally doesn't exist!




...
written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , September 12, 2011 - 10:49 pm
Resident & ragin_cajun:

I have immensely enjoyed your exchanges here! I wanted to post a comment contrasting your views by high intellectual standards. However, you two have exceeded my expectations! You have added considerably more pertinent information.

Don't forget what the Roman poetical satirist, Gaius Lucilius [ca. 180-ca. 102 BCE], (Pompey the Great was his nephew) asserted in his "saturae": Cupiditas ex homine, cupido ex stulto numquam tollitur! [English, "A man can be cured of his lust, but never a fool of his greed"] (F. Marx, C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, 1904-5)! Our Oil & Gas Industry captured well by an ancient critic!
...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 03:01 am
"You seem to deny that multinational corporations have a large and corrupting influence on government." I think it's the other way around...government has a large and corrupting influence on business. It's at LEAST a two way street, wouldn't you agree?"

Uh, No. Tell me, how many government lobbyists do you think you will find hanging around the Exxon Board room?

Look. Corporations are designed and mandated by contract to serve one and only one purpose. Make money for the investors.
They are not there to provide a widget or a service, that is all secondary to their number one goal. MAKE MORE MONEY.
If the board make any decision that is not designed to MAKE MORE MONEY then they can not only be fired, but sued by the stockholders.

Furthermore, if they do not continue to MAKE MORE MONEY then the CEO gets replaced, the Board of Directors gets replaced. ANYONE AND EVERYONE who stands in the way of a corporation making money GETS REPLACED.

If you haven't noticed, there has been a trend in the actions of CEOs over the last 10-15 years. It's a real easy job. Become CEO. Move manufacturing to china, support to india and fire all of the Americans and close the American offices. Suddenly the CEO is a HERO!

Without "government interference" in the market what you'll have is runaway corporations, gobbling up every competitor in their path. Sure there may end up being two or three companies in the end, like AT&T, but they will be so insanely powerful that no one will stand a chance.
That's pretty much were we are today.

Anyone who knows anything about economics can tell you that capitalism ultimately leads to one player owning all of the cards. It's just how it works.

But please, do explain, why is it you think that the "free market" is so honest and pure and uncorruptable, except by the ,LOL, Government.

The government is the only think keeping the corporations from eating America alive.






...
written by Jack Rabbit , September 13, 2011 - 06:30 am
Landry is an intelligent guy, it's too bad that he chooses to align himself with the Tea Party Terrorists...
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 13, 2011 - 03:01 pm
"Anyone who knows anything about economics can tell you that capitalism ultimately leads to one player owning all of the cards. It's just how it works. "

That is the most ignorant, uninformed, and patently incorrect statement I've ever heard about Capitalism. I would explain to you why you're wrong, IF I HADN'T ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS IN DETAIL HERE AT LEAST TWICE IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS.

I'll take a page from Gaius, instead, and point you to some more educated and knowledgeable people on the subject who are recognized experts in the field. Go read.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html

Milton Friedman "Free to Choose"
www.vonmises.org
Nouriel Roubini--for balance, since he is a more a "mixed economy" type than a "laissez-faire capitalist"



And you need to rethink your simplistic view of the role of American corporations in the global economy. It is WAY more than just "fire all the Americans". Why don't you spend a few days watching CNBC? America exports knowledge, services, products, financial know-how, and technology all over the world. Did you know that if you stripped away the "service sector" of the US economy and left only the "manufacturing sector", that the US would STILL be the 3rd largest economy in the world. Go look at NAM's website.


...
written by ragin_cajun , September 13, 2011 - 03:47 pm
Also, you make my point when YOU bring ATT into the conversation. ATT is a perfect example of the corrupting influence of government on corporations. The ATT monopoly was created, given over, maintained by, and enforced by Federal and State Governments. As Branden points out, a monopoly is BY DEFINITION, created and enforced by the action of a government.

Here is a long, detailed, and stunning report on the history of AT&T's monopoly over telecommunications in this country.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html

Read in particular the section "The Development of Competition, 1894-1913"

Look what happened to phone service. The federal government stepped in and created the phone monopoly you so despise. The States all happily jumped into the regulation game, too. For the "common good".


...
written by Resident , September 13, 2011 - 05:25 pm
I will agree that corruption is a two-way street. It's impossible to tell anymore where the corruption begins, from corporations or government. The revolving door is in full swing. Government certainly does enable monopolies instead of preventing them like it's supposed to, and enables things like oil, gas and coal being exempt from certain provisions of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Factory farms that are destroying water quality in the Chesapeake Bay are also exempt from the CWA.

That's why I call it the corporatocracy. Government acting on behalf of corporations, many times in direct opposition to consumer rights. And again, this is not to say that corporations are bad. Government enabling corporate tyranny is the problem.

Monsanto is a perfect example. Its history or aggressively shutting down smaller seed producers, actually contaminating non-GMO corn fields with their GMO product and then suing the farmer for patent infringement, lobbying a willing Congress to write laws that shut down local and non-GMO food procution. This stuff doesn't happen without the implicit consent of government, nor does it happen without the corporation spending millions of dollars to co-opt legislators and agencies. Monsanto even has a former attorney of theirs on the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas).

Oh, and about jobs, I stand by my statement that ramping up renewable energy research, development, and use will create far more jobs than drilling for oil. But I also support opening some offshore areas for drilling, IF regulations are put in place that mirror those in the North Sea and other deepwater areas.

I also stand by my statement that environmental regulations are not the only thing, or even the most significant thing, holding up new refineries. Refinery operators will tell you that it's cheaper to add to existing infrastructure, considering that the average cost of a new refinery is $2 billion. Refineries produce huge amounts of air and water pollution; if there was a "moratorium" on pollution regulations, the area would be a toxic waste field.

The hidden costs of fossil fuel use have been and are being quantified. I have not looked up any links lately, although I have in the past. This is not a political thing dreamed up by "committed leftists."

"Utopian" is a word that can be tossed around anywhere. I could just as easily say that your idea that if government would just get out of the way, everything would be fine, is utopian. But I recognize that there are many ideas out there and no one is entirely right. Governing will never be a single, pure ideology, but an ever-evolving form agreed upon by (hopefully) reasonable people with different thoughts.
...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 05:40 pm
First of all, you're giving me a link from the Cato institute which is a libertarian think tank "aka propaganda machine"

Second of all, if you think that AT&T did not have anything to do with the government decisions then that's just naive. Of course those laws were written into place by congressmen who were bought and paid for by AT&T.

Are you really that dense that you think corporations don't play a role in influencing the laws that congress passes? Do you even know what a lobbyist is?

Let me make it simple for you RC. People with lots of money can use that money to support election campaigns of those who will do their bidding. They have "conversations" with these candidates to discuss their needs. If their needs are not met, the candidate doesn't get more money from that company to get elected. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. Why is that concept so forigen to you?


...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 05:49 pm
The Kingsbury Commitment was thought to be pro-competitive. Yet, this was hardly an altruistic action on AT&T's part. The agreement was not interpreted by regulators so as to restrict AT&T from acquiring any new telephone systems, but only to require that an equal number be sold to an independent buyer for each system AT&T purchased. Hence, the Kingsbury Commitment contained a built-in incentive for monopoly-swapping rather than continued competition. Brock (1981: 156) noted, "This provision allowed Bell and the independents to exchange telephones in order to give each other geographical monopolies. So long as only one company served a given geographical area there was little reason to expect price competition to take place."

So in otherwords, the CORPORATION tricked the government into an agreement that further solidified their position.

So see, even your libertarian leaning propaganda shows that it was Corporations corrupting the government.

Sorry RC, but you just don't get it.
...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 06:00 pm
I'd also like to point out the current situation with employment as compared to 5 years ago.

5 years ago employers we having a REALLY hard time finding workers. The economy was booming, credit was easy to get, just any old person could get out there and start up a company.

This was a problem to the rich. Their costs were skyrocketing because they actually had to pay their employees a decent wage to keep them.

Now look where we are. unemployment is high. Credit is very difficult to get and they have droves of people begging for jobs at any rate.

Coincidence? I don't think so. It's no secret that the biggest reason we can't seem to get out of this situation is because businesses refuse to hire people. The Fed is making the money available to the banks for next to nothing, the banks are making the money available to the businesses for next to nothing. What's holding the recovery back? Oh yea, the business leaders (aka rich) refuse to do anything till we lower their taxes. Maybe we should just exempt them from taxes all together right?

No. Instead we should place a penalty on hoarding money.


...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 06:34 pm
What RC doesn't get is that the goverment (aka congress) is populated with people doing the bidding of the rich.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

Look, capitalism works...In theory... ONLY in theory.

Just like Communism. The problem is when people with power use that power to better their lives. And that will never happen because humans are greedy. Especially rich materialistic ones.

...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 06:46 pm
RC: "That is the most ignorant, uninformed, and patently incorrect statement I've ever heard about Capitalism. I would explain to you why you're wrong, IF I HADN'T ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS IN DETAIL HERE AT LEAST TWICE IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS. "

Dude we are already there.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://www.alternet.org/economy/152010
http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 13, 2011 - 07:14 pm
resident2 --

I can see that information in your hands is like a nuclear weapon in the hands of a savage. You have trouble grasping the concept, but you see clearly how to use it to attack your neighbors.

Let me point you to a few other passages from the article that MIGHT help you understand the incestuous relationship between the government and ATT that spawned one of the world's biggest and most well known monopolies.

"Although it is impossible to say exactly what would have happened if AT&T had not been pressured into the Kingsbury Commitment" So AT&T was pressured into it.

" Numerous federal and state officials began arguing quite openly that the telephone industry would function most efficiently if unified as one system."

"House of Representative committee report noted, "There is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone business"

"A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, "Competition resulted in duplication of investment. . . . The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication." Many state regulatory agencies began refusing requests by telephone companies to construct new lines in areas already served by another carrier and continued to encourage monopoly swapping and consolidation in the name of "efficient service" (Lavey 1987: 184-85). Kellogg, Thorne, and Huber (1992: 17) sum up the prevailing sentiment: "To judge by actions, then, rather than words, government officials had no strong objection to monopoly telephone service. This was especially true for state regulators. For them, a local telephone monopoly was both welcome and convenient."

"Thus, Vail obviously saw government regulation as the way to eliminate competitors: the one-way ticket, not only to universal service, but also to monopoly profits."

" once the nationalized system was in place, AT&T wasted no time applying for immediate and sizable rate increases. High service connection charges were put into place for the first time. AT&T also began to realize it could use the backing of the federal government to coax state commissions into raising rates. "

"Potential competitors were, and still are required to obtain from the FCC a "certificate of public convenience and necessity." The intent of the licensing process was again to prevent "wasteful duplication" and "unneeded competition." In reality, it served as a front to guard the interests of the regulated monopoly and the FCC's social agenda. "

"The overall hostility to competition by the FCC and the drafters of the legislation that gave birth to it is best illustrated by a 1988 Department of Commerce report on the development of the telecommunications industry. The report notes, "The chief focus of the Communications Act of 1934 was on the regulation of telecommunications, not necessarily its maximum development and promotion. [T]he drafters of the legislation saw the talents and resources of the industry presenting more of a challenge to the public interest than an opportunity for national progress"

So, go back and re-read the article, in its entirety, and as you read it, think about the hue and cry you hear now in the media about regulating the Internet. Pay particular attention to the remark in the article by the authors that the Government found it much easier to regulate one big company, like AT&T, than thousands of smaller regional phone companies. That exact point is being made in Washington right now about the Internet and ISP's.

"No. Instead we should place a penalty on hoarding money." That has been tried by many dictators in the past. That you would propose it here is telling.
...
written by beheard , September 13, 2011 - 08:34 pm
Guys, all of you are making great points and I agree with many of them. But the fact remains that Jeff Landry is a "fool", and should be called out by local Republican leadership. Speak up Ernie and company. And "THE BROTHEL KING," decided a Saints party was more important than atttending the address. Wow, we have leadership to be proud of. I'm will say this Boustany has always served with dignity and class.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 13, 2011 - 08:50 pm
"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands."

I've heard this drivel way too much in my short lifetime already. It amounts to very wealthy people, living in the richest and freest society the world has ever known, complaining because they're not as rich as they think they should be.

You live in America, which is still the biggest, richest, most decadent and luxurious society the world has ever seen. POOR people in America are better off here than "average" or "middle class" people are in Western Europe. The BOTTOM 10-20% here live in bigger nicer houses with more amenities than the middle class of Europe. You want to make us more like Europe? Because that's what you're saying.

"Look, capitalism works...In theory... ONLY in theory." Now you're really showing your ass. Karl Marx even conceded that Capitalism is the way to go if you want economic expansion. Most every other economist and theorist since has agreed with him. Where the actual debate lies is whether Capitalism is "fair" to the "working class", whatever the hell all that means.

But I'll tell it to you like this. In my company, there are 2 owners and 90 employees. The owners have HUGE houses, drive $90,000 cars, dress like mobsters, and talk about their trips to Europe and their kids private schools. The rest of us show up, do our work, and go home as long as the paychecks keep coming. That's how it SHOULD be. Because none of us lay awake at night worrying about the company, the debt, whether to hire or fire, the employees' benefits, the competitors, the manufacturers whose gear we sell, how to drum up sales, etc.

THAT'S why 80% of people in this country aren't as rich as the top 20%. Because 80% of the people in this country show up, do what they're told, get their check, and don't worry about it the rest of the day. 80% of the people in this country don't work much more than 40-50 hours in a week, and don't risk much more than borrowing to buy a house.

Maybe 80% of America SHOULDN'T own much more than 15% of the wealth of the world's richest society.


...
written by resident2 , September 13, 2011 - 09:50 pm
RC: All I can say is that you would've been one happy slave.

Long as the master is happy and you have a roof over your head, it's all good right?

Must be nice being so oblivious.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 13, 2011 - 11:05 pm
So I'm a slave because I don't demand wealth that I didn't earn? Because I don't demand that the owners of my company "share the wealth" with me, I deserve your insults and derision?

Because I reject the notion that the world is unfair, because I see an ordered universe that works predictably and a fair society that rewards effort with wealth, you say I'm oblivious?

NO ONE would open a business, take the risk, spend the time working and worrying to make it successful, if there weren't some financial reward to it. A successful business owner DESERVES every nickel he earns. You have no right to it.


...
written by Resident 2 , September 14, 2011 - 02:52 pm
" The owners have HUGE houses, drive $90,000 cars, dress like mobsters, and talk about their trips to Europe and their kids private schools. The rest of us show up, do our work, and go home as long as the paychecks keep coming"

Yea, tell me again. Who is actually doing the work? Who is actually EARNING the money to provide them with those things? YOU ARE. And that's ok with you because they took out a loan, found some rich people to put up some money or more typically got some money from Daddy Warbucks.

Yes, that's right. You are a slave to the rich because you can't go out and start a company. But more importantly you are oblivious to your fate. If your owners make some bad decisions and you get laid off because of it, oh well. That's not in your control. Oblivious.




...
written by ragin_cajun , September 14, 2011 - 04:59 pm
"You are a slave to the rich because you can't go out and start a company."

Now you're just a dumbass. I DO own a company! Started it myself two years ago, part time employees, I've even discussed it here. I am, at the same time, BOTH an employee AND an employer.

I am a slave to no one. I freely negotiated with my employer what my salary would be, what would be the terms of my employment, and what I would be expected to do for my salary. I am GLAD that the owners of the company that employs me did whatever it was that they did to start the company. Because of their initiative, and their entrepreneurial spirit, they were able to create a business venture that can afford to pay me the very high salary that my skills command. If not, I would have had to move out of the area to find work, or I would still be running tools in the Gulf of Mexico.
...
written by PhilNdeBlanc , September 15, 2011 - 08:53 pm
I've owned my own companies for 30 years. Let me tell you who the slave is, it's the owner, trying to make payroll, trying to motivate employees to get off their butt and think, trying to comply with a forest of new and often conflicting regulations, watching your competition move their labor offshore and undercut your costs. Watching your government lumber along, full speed ahead, wrong way and ignoring that iceberg ahead.

Back to the original premise, Drilling = Jobs. Whether you drive your car using oil products, solar panels, a little windmill on the roof, or pull it with two unicorns, the most effective way to get the car to move is oil products.

"Global warming" is a hoax. "Climate change" is just another way of saying "if you don't like the weather, wait a minute". And referencing "peer-reviewed" literature is a little like saying Copernicus admitted he was wrong, and the earth indeed was flat, cuz everybody else sez so.

And BP had a spill, because the existing federal inspectors were not doing their job, and the upper management of BP was deliberately doing every possible wrong thing to blow that well. Because they are STUPID. And stupid people tend to end up in charge of stuff that they have not the slightest understanding of.

The tool pusher on the rig was telling them what they were doing wrong, yet they continued to do the same things.

The same could be said for our current leadership. They do everything wrong to create jobs. We keep telling them what they are doing wrong (like Landry's sign), and they keep on doing the wrong thing. Meanwhile calling us childish, churlish, and terrorists.

The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is: stop digging.
...
written by LA Republican , September 22, 2011 - 12:24 am
There is nothing wrong with Jeff's sign. It is a common sense solution. Obama's solutions don't make sense.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it