Reply With Quote
Good Laurel and Hardy routine, and substance wise, on par with what you attempted to pass as off as serious replies.
The thread's finally startin' to warm up a bit, I knew it had potential.
June 16, 2008
Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices
By William Tate
This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats' actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.
10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.
9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: "Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so."
A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn't that have been a good thing?
8) Insistence on alternative fuels One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards." By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.
7) Nuclear power Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.
The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.
Need I say more?
6) Coal "The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.
5) Refinery capacity "High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010," according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems' environmentalist cons uency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
4) Reduced compe ion With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced compe ion. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers -- S -Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco -- happened on Clinton's watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton's two terms.
3) The Global Warming Myth At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari "described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions ... to address both issues simultaneously". As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 --the year that trading was initiated--and this year --when the trading expanded dramatically -- saw substantial and unexpected price es in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number...
2) Speculation "Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices ... it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation," writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically "were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.
1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:
<go to link for the explanation>
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._democr_1.html
I should think it would take some time to absorb the info presented (especially if you open the link), any quick responses will be taken worth a grain of salt (as the majority of the previous responses were)
Open-mindedness is helpful, but I realize that most can't help themselves.
Good Laurel and Hardy routine, and substance wise, on par with what you attempted to pass as off as serious replies.
The numbers are what they are, $1.10 under the Dems, and $2.25 after the Reps took over.Good Laurel and Hardy routine, and substance wise, on par with what you attempted to pass as off as serious replies.
The numbers are what they are, $1.10 under the Dems, and $2.25 after the Reps took over.
(ignorance is bliss)
And $4.08 now, shortly after the Dems promised to do something about the higher prices.
So you wanted the Democrats to do something about higher gas priced and claim their plan would have worked.
You're pretty stupid.
Ah, so you agree the Republicans are responsible for the rise of gas prices since 1994? I mean, it's all there in the numbers...(ignorance is bliss)
And $4.08 now, shortly after the Dems promised to do something about the higher prices.
(logical fallacy is sanctuary)
Sure. They have that secret magic wand Bush keeps rambling on about.
I never claimed it would work <other than perhaps with sarcasm because she/they didn't come throuhg on their grandiose promises>, obviously whatever they had in mind failed miserably.
RIF (unless your stupid)
I'll give you another cause, that the current Fed chairmain acknowledged in his last economic report, and we already discussed in another thread:
The depreciation of the dollar under this administration. Thanks to the billions we spend monthly in the stupid Iraq war. Interesting it didn't make your top 10 list, considering it has had more direct impact than all that global warming nonsense that made it on the list.
Oh, so you never believed anything you said and you were just wasting everyone's time with your stupid lies.
Thanks for nothing.
I'll give one more cause for rising oil prices that have nothing to do with Congress. Requests for drilling permits have gone down in the last few years. Oil Co's are still sitting on acres of land that are producing absolutely nothing. Some of them haven't even been explored yet.
What you make of that? What does Congress has to do with that?
You keep posting political propaganda but actually don't refute anything we counter with. I can just as easily go to some Dems blogs and start posting political garbage like you do.
Do you actually have anything to say, or you just going to keep on moving on to the next blog when your arguments are shown to be weak sauce?
Because I was open-minded enough to read jochhejaam's link, I learned that
I look forward to jochhejaam posting more of these intellectually rich insights from this, uh, "American Thinker" in the future.Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese
Let's see, from January 1994, when the Reps took over, gas rose roughly $1.25, or about 10 cents per year.The numbers are what they are, $1.10 under the Dems, and $2.25 after the Reps took over.
From January of 2006, when the Dems congress took over, gas rose roughly $1.85 per gallon, or about 70 cents per year.
That's a 7 fold increase per year, and you believe that's a point in favor of the Dems?
That's great Pixey, keep 'em comin'.
Nope, never said it, you're too comprehensively challenged to figure that out, that's on you.
How many of the 10 points did you refute? None? Okay that's an F grade, but on your behalf, in light of the fact that I didn't lie at all, you get an A+ grade for senseless name callling (not that it's anything to brag about, but I didn't want you to leave the thread empty handed).
Let's see, from January 1994, when the Reps took over, gas rose roughly $1.25, or about 10 cents per year.
From January of 2006, when the Dems congress took over, gas rose roughly $1.85 per gallon, or about 70 cents per year.
That's a 7 fold increase per year, and you believe that's a point in favor of the Dems?
That's great Pixey, keep 'em comin'.Wow, what a spectacularly epic fail on your part. There is no "point in favor" of either party, because I never accepted your logical fallacy regarding Congress's magical power to control gas prices. I wasn't trying to co-opt your argument, I was mocking it.
Thanks for never answering any of my questions and simply lying about everything you said before.Nope, never said it, you're too comprehensively challenged to figure that out, that's on you.
How many of the 10 points did you refute? None? Okay that's an F grade, but on your behalf, in light of the fact that I didn't lie at all, you get an A+ grade for senseless name callling (not that it's anything to brag about, but I didn't want you to leave the thread empty handed).
I can't think of a stupider poster right now, and that's saying something.
Please get back to us when you can say how much unlimited drilling in the US would decrease the price of gas. Otherwise, go yourself.
Good luck getting those panties unwadded.
Here's a partisan, ad hominem laced left-wing blog screed I found to explain the rise in prices.
What's all this crap about global production and demand? Doesn't this guy realize Nancy Pelosi has the magic wand?!!!http://wallstreetpit.com/with-global...-remains-flat/ (psyche!!!!)
With Global Demand Rising, Oil Production Remains Flat
By Ron Haruni · June 28, 2008
Economics clearly support the notion that in a functioning market economy, increases in revenue are likely to lead to investment in the industry, expansion of supply, and ultimately moderating prices for consumers in the longer term. If this self-correcting process is not working, as seems to be the case with oil lately, then - this could be a rather strong indication, that factors other than profit and investment incentives are at work. This unavoidably, as we have experienced with crude, will result in additional long term increases in price and profit for the industry.
The international conference of oil producers, which was held in Jeddah , Saudi Arabia on June 23, kept as its focal point not only the unprecedented hike in oil prices, but also the role of speculators in shooting up prices in world markets. Now, and quite honestly here - this game of “let’s blame the speculators” has gotta stop. Speculators are not the driving force behind rising demand for oil in the emerging economies and they are certainly not the reason the current Saudi production of 970K barrels a day is not an all-time high. Oil producers are the ones that ultimately determine the long-term price trend, not speculators.
Frankly, not only is the speculator-argument unrealistic and without base, but it’s outright - laughable.
Even U.S. energy secretary Bodman last week said “There is no evidence that we can find that speculators are driving futures prices” for oil. I agree with energy secretary’s assessment. All we have to do is look at commodities such as iron ore or coal which are not traded on the futures exchange and are not influenced by speculation. Both of these commodities have risen at a higher rate than oil since the end of fiscal ‘02. And it’s not just oil, prices are up across the board and that’s a fact.
Another interesting aspect is OPEC’s constant claim that there is significant speculative premium in oil prices. Well, let’s take a look at some data. - Our imports from Mexico, and Venezuela are running more than 30% below year-over-year basis. Libya keeps threatening to cut back on their production. Nigerian exports are way off due to political instability. Saudi exports are running below fiscal ‘05 levels, (true - the Saudis pledged to add 200K barrels a day to the market, but let’s face it - that’s just a drop in the bucket in the context of global consumption), and Russian production is starting to fall.
Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has convened at least 40 hearings on the issue of skyrocketing energy prices in the first half of fiscal ‘08. At least 160 witnesses have been sworn-in and questioned and yet nothing has been done, in terms of effectively addressing energy issues let alone finding solutions. In fact, many of the experts called to testify were rather misinformed about how the markets realistically function.
Meanwhile, more than 73 million new cars hit the road last year.
It is a persisting and irrefutable fact - world demand continues to rise while the production has remained flat since fiscal ‘05. With output at several major oil exporters in decline and no big fields slated to come on steam anytime soon. Let’s face it. This is not about speculation, it’s just good old supply versus demand. Whether we like it or not, price will function to equalize the quan y demanded by consumers.
Interestingly, after OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted on June 28, that the price of oil will climb to $170 p/b before the end of the year, several analysts came out saying that they expected the ‘oil bubble’ to burst soon. In fact, they called for a 25%-30% drop in oil prices over the next six months.
While, this would certainly help return oil prices to more practical levels, a 25%-30% drop in oil prices is only a correction. A 30% correction in a commodity or even a blue chip stock is not uncommon. That’s why we don’t understand the ‘bubble’ analogy used by different analysts, including an article published by Barron’s recently where oil was analyzed in bubble terms.
The essence of a bubble is that it involves a sharp rise in the value of an asset that inevitably destroys the reason behind the rise. Tech was a classic example. That’s not the case however, with oil. We don’t have a scenario in which newly issued shares are diluting earnings and funding capital investment that could lead to vast overcapacity and ultimately earnings collapse. Many energy stocks are cheap by any measure, whether relative or absolute.
Damn those Democrats for building all those cars in Asia.[/joch]
I will give the conservatives some props in this whole debate for what they are not saying. That more drilling will bring the price of oil/gas down.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
