By the way, here’s another opinion on the subject by someone we all know:

Schwarzenegger Still Opposes Offshore Drilling
California governor declines to join McCain’s call to lift ban
By Justin Ewers
Posted June 18, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO—California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today stood his ground on offshore drilling, declining to join a call by fellow Republicans, including President Bush and John McCain, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, to lift a moratorium on drilling off the coast of California and other coastal states. McCain said this week that he supports allowing states to determine whether they want to tap into the oil reserves beneath their coastal waters. In California, at least, there appear to be powerful political forces against the idea.

“California’s coastline is an international treasure,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement today. “I do not support lifting this moratorium on new drilling off our coast.”

Schwarzenegger was quick to acknowledge that the high cost of gasoline, which is selling for an average of $4.58 a gallon in the state, is taking a toll on California even more than other states. Recent national polls show as many as 67 percent of voters believe offshore drilling is a good solution. But Schwarzenegger today threw his support behind conservation and alternative fuels, instead. “We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil,” Schwarzenegger said. “The direction our nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for consumers. That is the way we will ultimately reduce fuel costs and also protect our environment.”

Sorry for the distraction.

And you’re right about Russia. But what major power’s hands are not clean (including the US’s)? I wasn’t trying to say (as you seem to think) that Russia was innocent , rather I was saying Russia was not one of the “abusive dictatorial regimes who hate the western world and scoff at human rights” like you had mentioned.

But let me hasten to the part that you think I don’t get: “We’re not paying hundreds of billions of dollars to Americans. We’re paying lots of money to oil companies…”
So, what nationality are the oil companies? If I understand right, you’d rather keep paying those hundreds of billions a year to OPEC countries — Saudi Princes, Chavez’ Venezuela, oppressive Libya — rather than oil companies (who aren’t Americans?) who employ American workers and benefit American shareholders, thus improving our economy and helping “the everyday American,” not to mention depriving corrupt countries of our money. I’m not sure why you’d rather the money go overseas, let alone to the countries it’s going to.

As an example, you mentioned innocent non-OPEC Russia, so I’ll throw this out: wonder why they think they can bomb countries they don’t like (e.g. Georgia)? It’s because they’re selling oil to the world and they know we won’t stand up to them. I’d call that a human rights issue and a major problem.

Again, drilling is not the solution. It’s a part of the solution. We’ve got to find a way out of our dependency. And if Obama is saying no drilling, no nuclear plants, and no coal, then we have secured our dependence for decades to come.

Sadly, you don’t seem to understand my point, you just keep repeating yours over and over. We’re not paying hundreds of billions of dollars to Americans. We’re paying lots of money to oil companies, who will profit off the infrastructure and oil and either keep the money or send it on to their own shareholders. This is not a general economic stimulus, this is a continued enrichment of a few and elite. And even with the increased inventory, the actual decrease in the per gallon price of gasoline for the average consumer will be negligible. And so our energy woes continue for the everyday American.

The production and infrastructure costs you mention would be advantageous to our economy…that is, unless you actually view increased jobs and domestic production as negatives. No matter how you try to spin it, the money stays home — we’re paying ourselves instead of the bad guys. Pretty straightforward here.

Points for trying to muddy up the waters with your economics lesson, but in doing so you accidentally demonstrated my point for me. In flailing for a downside to domestic oil production (“Umm, we’ll have to pay Americans to work production and design and build infrastructure!! — oh, oh, and oil companies will make money!!”), I think you’ve nicely illustrated the several upsides to oil production.

Here’s my economics lesson for you (with a little moral component for you to consider):
Paying hundreds of billions of dollars to Americans — good
Paying hundreds of billions of dollars to abusive dictatorial regimes who hate the western world and scoff at human rights — bad

Do you like these sources for the same quote by the same person?

Wall Street Journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/19/mccain-open-to-new-information-on-anwr/

CNN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/22/obama-wants-energy-speculator-crackdown/

And let me explain simple economics to you. It’s not enough to look at what we can call Gross Savings… the simple math of Previous Foreign Expenditures – New Domestic Production.

You’ve got to look at the more complete Net Savings/(Loss) equation of Old Foreign Expenditures – New Domestic Production – Investment in Infrastructure – Oil Company Profits – New Refinery Building Costs – Incidental damage to the Environment and damage to animal habitats (a few that are threatened species).

It’s simple. You don’t get something new without paying for it.