Why does the Whitehouse subsidize Brazil's oil drilling and ban our own?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defau鈥?/a>Why does the Whitehouse subsidize Brazil's oil drilling and ban our own?
As far as subsidizing Brazil's oil drilling, this was a loan guarantee made by the US Import Export Bank





-The Import/Export Bank is a self-sustaining bank. NO taxpayer money is used in any of it's loans. It is self-sustaining because of the fees it collects. It receives no Congress appropriated funds.





-The Import/Export Bank ONLY makes loans and loan guarantees that finance the PURCHASE of American Goods. The money can ONLY be used by Petrobas for the purchase of American goods and services. The money is always paid back as it is a loan: they do not provide any grants.





-Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. Their charter prohibits them from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet environmental standards.





-Since 1993 the Import/Export Bank has netted the US taxpayers $4.9 Billion in fees without costing the taxpayers a penny. This is in addition to all the jobs created.





-The Bank鈥檚 bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, the Bank鈥檚 Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats - all of whom were appointed by....





George W. Bush.








Interestingly enough, the idea that the Whitehouse is subsidizing Brazilian drilling started once again with....Ms. Sarah Palin! It is interesting to note that the National Review posted an article online completely debunking that the US is sending money overseas and exporting jobs. The National Review is a NOTED CONSERVATIVE publication.Why does the Whitehouse subsidize Brazil's oil drilling and ban our own?
The import/export bank is private.


Private investors can extend loans to foreign firms through the bank.


The white house, congress, and our tax dollars have nothing to do with it.


We have free trade with many countries so you can I can invest in this way.


Republicans and special interest have spread a lot of false information and smear stories regarding this to demonize democrats and anyone that fights for our environment.
The White House didn't give them anything, and it didn't come from taxpayer money.





It's not a ';subsidy.'; The LOAN is coming from the US Import Bank, which is not funded by taxpayer money.





The U.S. Export Import Bank's sole purpose is to lend money to foreign companies for the purchase of American goods and services.





Loan. With interest. We come out on top.





Fun fact: Brazil sends us 188,000 barrels of oil PER DAY.
First the Import Export Bank is funded 100% by the US taxpayer. It is part of our government. Why do we do it? Because te white house is a hypocrite. Do as I say and not as I do. We worry about the enviorment, but not anywhere else but here. It is truly a risky venture to lend money to a country that has a volatile economy. Did we forget about 25 years ago they defaulted on billions of dollars in loans? No, but we never learn
excuse the spelling , but the reason is the man who put the president in his positionn ( george sorose) is behind it, he is as America hater as you can get!
There is no ';ban'; on drilling. Just a requirement that the Oil Industry drill for oil on the millions of acres of land leased to them which they have not yet begun to drill on.








The Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act





On July 17, 2008, the House voted on the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act, H.R. 6515, a bill to promote the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas, particularly in 20 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. While 244 Members voted for the bill, it failed to get the two-thirds support necessary for passage.


';There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies for energy production now but sitting idle. That鈥檚 75% of leased lands, sitting idle. Oil companies should drill what they have leased鈥攁nd lease lands already open for drilling first. But instead, President Bush and Congressional Republicans want to make this a fight about our beaches and our threatened wilderness areas, in an apparent attempt to help the oil companies lock up more public lands before he leaves office.';





Bush, Democrats bicker over soaring energy prices


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent


President Bush on Saturday tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.


';It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens,'; the president said. ';Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better.';


With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, Bush and his Republican allies think Americans are less reluctant to allow drilling offshore and in an Alaska wildlife refuge that environmentalists have fought successfully for decades to protect. Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center in late June said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came among political liberals.


Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil.


';Americans are fed up every time they go to fill up and they're right to demand action. But instead of a serious response, President Bush and his allies simply repeat the same old line more drilling,'; Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address.





';Democrats support more drilling,'; he said. ';In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will.';





';But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices,'; Van Hollen said. ';We cannot drill our way to energy independence.';





He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it is full and ';America's rainy day is now.'; And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil.





Bush said that Democrats are at fault and that ';Americans are increasingly frustrated with Congress' failure to take action.


';One of the factors driving up high gas prices is that many of our oil deposits here in the United States have been put off-limits for exploration and production. Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have been repeatedly rejected by Democrats in Congress.';


Bush repeated his call for Congress to lift the restrictions, including a ban on offshore drilling. A succession of presidents from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current president have sided against drilling in these waters as has Congress each year for 27 years, seeking to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.