Reply With Quote
That tool of a writer fails to mention that when Iran did their missile tests, Oil ed up again. Whose fault is that? Democrats?
This Democrat Congress has been terrible. But you can't blame them for the Oil speculation.
Blame Dems on gas prices
By Jack Kelly
Toledo Blade - July 19, 2008
IN THE six years between President Bush's inauguration in 2001 and the Democrats' assumption of control of Congress in 2007, the price of gasoline rose an average of 14 cents a year. Since the Democrats took over Congress, the price of gas has doubled, the inflation monster has reawakened and the recession wolf is sniffing at our door.
I know. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of) was the first logical fallacy they taught back when logic was taught in school. It may merely be coincidence that things went to in a hand basket since the Democrats took over.
Or maybe not. Here's another coincidence. On July 15, President Bush announced he was lifting the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling. In the 24 hours that followed, crude oil futures plunged $9.26 (6.3 percent), the biggest oil price decline in 17 years.
"Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a new drop of oil has been lifted," said financial analyst Lawrence Kudlow. "If Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That's the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime."
Oil prices fell again the next day when the Bureau of Land Management overrode the objections of environmentalists and opened 4.9 million acres of land in Alaska to oil exploration.
Oil prices are high chiefly because Democrats in Congress won't let us develop oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (10.4 billion barrels, equivalent to 37 percent of our proven reserves), on the Outer Continental Shelf (86 billion barrels, nearly four times our proven reserves), or the oil shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (800 billion barrels, more than the proven reserves of the rest of the world).
Democrats also oppose the most promising intermediate-term alternatives to oil: coal-to-liquid plants that convert coal to gasoline and diesel fuel (one using mostly U.S. technology will open in China this fall) and nuclear power plants.
Democrats say developing the oil resources we have in this country is not a solution because it would take five to 10 years for the additional oil to come on line. This isn't true.
"A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if [the congressional ban on offshore drilling] were lifted," Mr. Kudlow said. "The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They're talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California."
But even if it were true, Democrats are being hypocritical. The primary reason they oppose developing our oil and natural gas resources and pursuing clean coal technologies (we're the Saudi Arabia of coal) is their concern for global warming.
"Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said last month.
Global warming exists only in computer models. In the real world, global temperatures peaked in 1998, have been declining for the last four years and are projected to remain flat or decline further for the next decade.
Even in the computer models, global warming doesn't pose a serious problem for at least half a century. But the "cap and trade" emission-control systems Democrats are proposing to combat it would have immediate negative effects on the economy.
A Heritage Foundation study estimated that Senate Bill 2191 would reduce the gross domestic product by at least $155 billion a year. All this to produce what the computer models say would be only a negligible reduction in carbon emissions - none at all if China and India don't go along, as they've said they won't.
So Democrats demand we cripple our economy now to deal with a threat that may not exist and which computer models indicate wouldn't manifest itself for 50 years or more, but they refuse to take action on the real economic crisis we face today - a crisis they are largely responsible for creating - because it could take five to 10 years to turn things around.
This may make sense in Hyde Park or Berkeley, but not in those portions of America where people use their heads for something other than to hold up their hair.
Jack Kelly is a member of The Blade’s national bureau.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ST14/807190326
That tool of a writer fails to mention that when Iran did their missile tests, Oil ed up again. Whose fault is that? Democrats?
This Democrat Congress has been terrible. But you can't blame them for the Oil speculation.
If that statement about missle tests causing a e was intended to debunk the thrust of his article, it failed miserably.
The sum total of calling him a tool, without refuting even 1 of his contentions, amounts to nothing more than childish name calling.
No mention of the time when the GOP was in control of all three branches. Seems to be a little dishonest to blame the dem congress for blocking anything when the GOP was in control for a much longer time and didn't drill anywhere. I guess it was an oversight for the rightwing organization..
This thread already explained what most likely happened. If you didn't bother to read, it's your problem. Not to mention he diligently forgets that this wouldn't have been a problem when Republicans had full control of Congress and failed to do about this. So yeah, I'd say he's a political biased tool.
It was $2.25 when the Dems took over, a little less anxiety than at $4.08, don't you think?
April, 2008
In a 2006 press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Democrats had a common sense plan to bring down skyrocketing fuel prices. The average price for a gallon of gas when Democrats took control of congress that November was $2.25 - a price that Pelosi and other liberals claimed amounted to "price gouging". The average price of a gallon of gas today is now up to a record $3.61 (actually $4.08 July 16th), and in Speaker Pelosi's home Congressional district in the California bay area, the price tops $4 a gallon.
http://fromtheduke.blogspot.com/2008...ntrol-and.html
Again, $2.25 a gallon when the Reps were in control.
And of course I read it, and he put the blame squarely on the Dems. You refuted nothing he said, but still claim he's a tool.
I don't mind you looking foolish, if you don't mind looking foolish.
What specifically did the Democratic congress do to make the price of oil so high?
All the drill bans were already in place long ago, and I don't remember the Republican controlled congress doing anything to lift them in all their years in power.
As Kelly said, post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Its so obvious! The Democrats taking control of congress caused India and China to increase their demand for oil.
DUH!
What did the democratic congress to prevent if from spiraling out of control?
What was this from Pelosi?:
Monday, April 24, 2006
Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today...
“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
He** of a plan <what was the plan?
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/re...bberstamp.html
$2.25 a gallon vs $4.08 a gallon. Who's more at fault for sitting on their collective tushes, the congress that didn't lift the bans at $2.25, or the congress that's still doing nothing at $4.08? (hint, the do-nothings at $4.08).All the drill bans were already in place long ago, and I don't remember the Republican controlled congress doing anything to lift them in all their years in power.
Maybe Pelosi should have got with Hillary to find out how she was planning on "smashing OPEC".
Repeating a logical fallacy over and over again isn't winning you the argument.
$2.25 a gallon vs $4.08 a gallon. Who's more at fault for sitting on their collective tushes, the congress that didn't lift the bans at $2.25, or the congress that's still doing nothing at $4.08? (hint, the do-nothings at $4.08).
Maybe Pelosi should have got with Hillary to find out how she was planning on "smashing OPEC".
So you don't have an answer.
Thanks!
The numbers speak for themselves, making a statement such as yours surely isn't winning any talking points.
Thanks for playing though.
Which numbers?The numbers speak for themselves
Could you show me the numbers that say gas would be exactly the same price today as it was in 2006 if only the Democrats allowed drilling in places that wouldn't be developed in ten years even though the Republicans did absolutely nothing about it when they controlled every aspect of the US government?
I'll wait for that link.
Thanks in advance.
Apparently the problem is just as much a matter of what they didn't do, that is, they didn't execute Pelosi's plan to; "bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels".
Why is it that they haven't delivered on that promise?
<misdirection coming up in 3,2,1...>
That wasn't what your article or your original claim was about.
Yours is the misdirection.
Are you claiming the Pelosi plan would have worked, or are you just being disingenuous again?
Don't bother, we know you are being disingenuous again.
The numbers are what they are, $2.25 under the Reps, and $4.08 shortly after the Dems took over.
Link's already been provided.
<you're welcome>
acknowledged
Nope, not the question -- but thanks for proving to be an evasive, lying twit.
You've been a great help in showing how the Republicans did absolutely nothing about lifting drilling bans when they had the chance.
Acknowledged.
I meant if you read the thread. The original article that started the thread was just as stupid as yours, blaming Congress for the Oil prices. Now go back and read the responses.
And of course I read it, and he put the blame squarely on the Dems. You refuted nothing he said, but still claim he's a tool.
I don't mind you looking foolish, if you don't mind looking foolish.
In a nuts :
1) Congress did nothing to increase the demand for oil worldwide
2) Oil Co's are not drilling in the acres they already leased. Congress have nothing to do with that.
3) This Congress has actually been trying to pass legislation preventing further land leases until Oil Co's explore the acres already leased. So it's not like the Dems are against drilling, they're just against land hoarding by Oil Co's. Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed this measure.
Again, go back and read the thread. The arguments from that political hack have been refuted already.
And BTW, correlation is not causation. You need to demonstrate the cause, otherwise you can blame anything on anybody.
Last edited by ElNono; 07-19-2008 at 09:18 PM.
If every inch of the US is open to drilling, how much will that lower the price of gas?
Gas was $1.10 before Reps took over congress in 1994, ergo they are to blame for the rise of gas prices since then.
<your welcome>
[/jochejaam logic]
Gas prices doubled since the Spurs won their 4th le. It must be their fault. We should have let Lebron win and gas would still be $2.00...
The numbers are what they are.
(drops mic Chris Rock style and walks off...)
But thanks for playing though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions