DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 06, 2008, 03:36:07 PM
-
Just happened to catch CNN on lunch and I don't know if I got this right or not but the talking heads were all atwitter that in just one day the price of oil has gone up $9.00 per barrel.
if it's true, this is going to sink McCain if nothing else didn't or wouldn't. This is a direct consequence of the failed Bush policies of war and tax cuts, together with his total failure to create any useful energy policy in his almost eight years of woefully obvious misrule. Those who supported him until now might understand nothing of international law, Middle Eastern politics or fiscal policy, but what they DO understand by God is what it costs them to fill their tanks. Bye-bye Bush and McSame.
Bush leaned on Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC members to get them not to follow Iran's example of selling oil for euros and yen, but all that effort was wasted. Since the dollar's so unstable, all he accomplished was to get the rest of OPEC continue to sell oil for dollars, then immediately convert those dollars to euros or yen. Same effect - - the dollar is abandoned either by those with oil to sell or those with dollars to sell.
Nope. This is definitely NOT gonna be a Republican year.
-
The democrats promised to fix this problem in '06.
Nope, definitely not a democrat year.
-
According to your theory, the family won't blame the teenager who drove the family car off the pier, but the diver who couldn't raise it from the ocean floor.
-
I harbor no illusions. The GOP may indeed lose big time this fall. NOT for what they supposedly did to the car, but how they decided to forgo the basic princples of fiscal discipline & conservative ideology that got them elected in the 1st place. They lost not because of the war or even the economy, they lost their base. IIRC, many of the seats that were held by the GOP that have been won over by Democrats were largely due to conservative leaning Democrat candidates running against Republicans who tried to be big government, Democrat-like incumbants
News Flash GOP......go back to the drawing board or lose BIG time this Nov
-
The democrats promised to fix this problem in '06.
Nope, definitely not a democrat year
========================================
In a presidential election, the voters are going to blame Congress and not the oilman who did NOTHING but veto and threaten vetos for seven years?
YOu are an imbecile.
A hooting, barking mad imbecile.
-
<<to forgo the basic princples of fiscal discipline & conservative ideology>>
Oh, like starting a little 3-trillion-dollar war and neglecting to raise any taxes to cover the cost of it? Yeah, that sure sounds like SOMEBODY overlooked some pretty basic principles of fiscal discipline at least. And when other currency traders notice little details like that and the dollar begins to implode, that's different from driving the family car off the pier how, exactly?
-
Naaaaa, more like spending like a drunken Democrat, allowing government to increase at every level, with a President not standing up and vetoing even 1 single budget, in his 1st 6years. And despite record increase in Fed revenue due in large part to the tax cuts, still spend more than what one takes in.
Details like that
-
So Oil prices have more than doubbleed in the time since the Democrats won controll of Congress?
I feel a long season of finger pointing comeing on.
-
<<So Oil prices have more than doubbleed in the time since the Democrats won controll of Congress?>>
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo - no I don't think "doubled" is accurate. And last time I checked, Bush was still President and the Democrats had no way to override his veto power. But I think that five years of war in Iraq have clearly taken their toll on the dollar. I think most voters realize that economies don't turn on a dime and will be a lot more likely to blame the past eight years of the Bush administration for today's balls-up than the relatively short time when the Democrats held a very tenuous grip on the Congress and still had to fight with a chaotically inept Bush administration to get anything done. Nice try, though.
-
Actually, presidential vetoes can and have been overriden.
-
Daily fluctuations are generally not the most concerning things, if it stays at this price for some time then I will begin to worry.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25005884
Following Thursday's monster reversal on oil, a couple of equity traders sent me pretty skeptical e-mails saying "Seriously??!" Their take, the oil move is purely speculative, and they blamed the big players.
One of them pointed out that it came on the day that Rep. Bart Stupak said it's time to shore up the loopholes that have allowed big speculators to manipulate the energy market.
When a reporter asked whether he meant Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, his response, "You said it, not me." Stupak underscored he saw no illegal activity by speculators.
-
<<So Oil prices have more than doubbleed in the time since the Democrats won controll of Congress?>>
no I don't think "doubled" is accurate. And last time I checked, Bush was still President and the Democrats had no way to override his veto power.
And the legislation put forward by the majority Dems, that he supposedly would have vetoed was.......what again??
-
<<So Oil prices have more than doubbleed in the time since the Democrats won controll of Congress?>>
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo - no I don't think "doubled" is accurate. And last time I checked, Bush was still President and the Democrats had no way to override his veto power. But I think that five years of war in Iraq have clearly taken their toll on the dollar. I think most voters realize that economies don't turn on a dime and will be a lot more likely to blame the past eight years of the Bush administration for today's balls-up than the relatively short time when the Democrats held a very tenuous grip on the Congress and still had to fight with a chaotically inept Bush administration to get anything done. Nice try, though.
All right , more than doubbled in that period if you are pleased to be perfect.
But I am makeing a point that is not the point I ment to make.
Finger pointing , lots of finger pointing,pui, what is the action where is the plan?
There isn't a coherent energy policy even on the table , whose fault is it that no one is trying?
-
<<There isn't a coherent energy policy even on the table , whose fault is it that no one is trying?>>
I dunno, whose responsibility is it to come up with one?
-
<<There isn't a coherent energy policy even on the table , whose fault is it that no one is trying?>>
I dunno, whose responsibility is it to come up with one?
Every one of those "change " canadates who won when the Republicans won and all of the "change " canadates who won when the Democrats won.
Every stupid one of them.
-
I always thought it was the role of the Executive to propose legislation to the legislature that would be timely, problem-solving, etc. That's what the President was elected for, to be a leader, to take the lead. And since the majority party in the legislature has the power to say yea or nay to any proposed legislation, it's usually that majority party, elected because of the faith the people had in their leadership abilities, that also should be formulating legislation that it knows it can pass that will deal with the problems of the day.
It's always amazing to me how blatantly Republicans can dodge responsibility for their own inadequacies and point the finger of blame at the OPPOSITION party and at the guy who WASN'T elected President for their own failures. There is a solid 8-year record of blatant failure and you guys not only walk away from it, but point your fingers to blame the opposition and claim "We're all to blame in this." How generous of you. But how disingenuous. No, both parties are NOT equally at fault. In a Republican administration, the Republicans can take the credit for the accomplishments of the administration but they also have to accept responsibility for the failures. And in this case, it's ALL failure.
-
I always thought it was the role of the Executive to propose legislation to the legislature that would be timely, problem-solving, etc. That's what the President was elected for, to be a leader, to take the lead.
The president is the head of the executive branch - the branch of government involved with ENFORCING laws.
Only members of the legislative branch can propose new laws.
-
I always thought it was the role of the Executive to propose legislation to the legislature that would be timely, problem-solving, etc. That's what the President was elected for, to be a leader, to take the lead. And since the majority party in the legislature has the power to say yea or nay to any proposed legislation, it's usually that majority party, elected because of the faith the people had in their leadership abilities, that also should be formulating legislation that it knows it can pass that will deal with the problems of the day.
It's always amazing to me how blatantly Republicans can dodge responsibility for their own inadequacies and point the finger of blame at the OPPOSITION party and at the guy who WASN'T elected President for their own failures. There is a solid 8-year record of blatant failure and you guys not only walk away from it, but point your fingers to blame the opposition and claim "We're all to blame in this." How generous of you. But how disingenuous. No, both parties are NOT equally at fault. In a Republican administration, the Republicans can take the credit for the accomplishments of the administration but they also have to accept responsibility for the failures. And in this case, it's ALL failure.
If nine bucks (ten now)rise in a day is important , then a doubbleing since the Congressional elections in '06 is important for the same reason.
It proves nothing to me , no single agency has direct controll , the Spot Market amounts to an auction .
-
I always thought it was the role of the Executive to propose legislation to the legislature that would be timely, problem-solving, etc. That's what the President was elected for, to be a leader, to take the lead.
The president is the head of the executive branch - the branch of government involved with ENFORCING laws. Only members of the legislative branch can propose new laws.
Couldn't have assessed it any better, Ami. Yea, last time I checked it was the LEGISLATIVE branch of Government, that supposedly proposes legislation that's "timely & problem solving"
-
I figured, with adjustments for nomenclature, your system works pretty much like ours. Here the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the majority party in the Legislature, forms a Cabinet together with his Ministers and the Cabinet plans the legislation for the coming Parliamentary session, which is debated, amended and then (if all goes well) enacted into law. Of course in Canada all the Ministers (department heads) are also sitting members of the legislature and in the U.S.A. they can be appointed from the general public, but that's a minor detail.
I figured the President and his Cabinet decide what legislation they'd like to see passed, and the Congressional Committees consider the various bills they receive, make amendments as required, tee up the Senate and House versions of the Bill so they match and then put the thing to a vote in both houses. Is that wrong?
-
Here the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the majority party in the Legislature
That is where our systems differ. Presidents aren't guaranteed the pleasure of a majority party.
-
Right, that was my mistake. I just wasn't thinking.
-
I figured the President and his Cabinet decide what legislation they'd like to see passed, and the Congressional Committees consider the various bills they receive, make amendments as required, tee up the Senate and House versions of the Bill so they match and then put the thing to a vote in both houses. Is that wrong?
Yes, that's wrong.
While the President can say that he'd like to see such-and-such legislation passed, it's still up to a member of Congress to write and submit the legislation. There are only two things that the President directly submits to Congress - a "State of the Union" (usually submitted as a speech, though it has been submitted in writing a number of times) and a proposed budget. Everything else flows in the other direction, from Legislative to Executive.
-
Of course in Canada all the Ministers (department heads) are also sitting members of the legislature and in the U.S.A. they can be appointed from the general public, but that's a minor detail.
Actually, it's not a "minor detail". In the US, the members of the cabinet CANNOT be sitting members of the legislature. The only member of the executive branch that has a direct tie to the legislative is the Vice President, and then it's only to break tied votes in the Senate. He has no other powers or duties in Congress.
-
>>In a presidential election, the voters are going to blame Congress...<<
Once again BO, you seem unable to grasp anything that isn't spoon feed to you shit for brains. Your leftist scumbag leaders claimed to be able to control the price of oil. They promised to lower the price at the pump if elected. They didn't deliver. Of course slope headed communists like yourself don't really give a damn if liberals come through on their promises. All you care about is how much hate mongering they do and which one of them can cause the most damage to the country.
Keep your head up your ass you sniveling little coward.
-
Why don't you tell us which Democrats claimed to control the price of oil?
The fact is, when shit happens in a presidential election year, the party of the president gets punished. This is just a fact. Watch and see McCain get punished for Juniorbush's failures
-
>>In a presidential election, the voters are going to blame Congress...<<
Of course slope headed communists like yourself don't really give a damn if liberals come through on their promises.
I wasn't aware that XO was Asian. You should be careful with comments like this, someone like kimba could be legitimately offended.
-
Seriously, Rich. You can do better than that.
-
>>In a presidential election, the voters are going to blame Congress...<<
Once again BO, you seem unable to grasp anything that isn't spoon feed to you shit for brains. Your leftist scumbag leaders claimed to be able to control the price of oil. They promised to lower the price at the pump if elected. They didn't deliver. Of course slope headed communists like yourself don't really give a damn if liberals come through on their promises. All you care about is how much hate mongering they do and which one of them can cause the most damage to the country.
Keep your head up your ass you sniveling little coward.
Good grief , did you find Molsons in your cornflakes again?
"leftist scumbag leaders " is alright
" you sniveling little coward" is not alright
I don't want you to stop posting here Rich but I don't want you driving off the competition either.
Of course MT disagrees with us , if we wanted to simply congratulate each other on how right we are there are places to go like that , but we have purposely gathered up people as a community that represent all the corners of the social matrix.
Disagreement isn't undesirable , it is the point of the place.
So pointing at the qualities of national figures is not personal , it is part of political conversation . The courage of Barak Obama and the Temper of John McCain or the wisdom of Bob Barr need to be frankly assessed and cant be politely overlooked .These things may be personal to them, but as presidential candidates these personal qualityies have become our business to discuss because we are choosing leadership .
The personal qualities of our membership is entirely diffrent , it is not good for our examination of ideas to make everything personal. I don't care about the personal hygiene or courage or family history of Rich , there isn't any reason to bring it up . I do care about your wisdom and how it is diffrent from mine , what I can learn is all of the difference.
I urge you to attack the logic of the opposition with better logic , attack the thinking you do not like vigorously by offering better thinking , attack ideas you dislike by proposing better ones.
But don't drive off the Liberals unless you can replace them.
-
I suggest that the issue of who is a coward and who is brave is utterly meaningless in any internet forum.
There is no way anyone can show either bravery or cowardice in this venue.
I maintain that I have never sniveled.
I am not a Communist, but a somewhat successful capitalist, in that I have derived significant income from investments. I do not, however, believe that a totally free market makes for a satisfactory society for a majority, or even a sizable minority of any population, as it has not done this to date, anywhere.
I suggest that when one is rebuked by the seldom-seen chickencounter, one should consider a change in one's rhetoric.
-
I do not, however, believe that a totally free market makes for a satisfactory society for a majority, or even a sizable minority of any population, as it has not done this to date, anywhere.
Where has a totally free market been tried?
-
Where has a totally free market been tried?
I would guess under the rule of Attila the Hun.
You could also ask when has pure Communism been tried?
When has pure anarchy been tried?
No one will ever manage to say this to everyone's agreement.
Someone will always want to argue about the "purity".
You must know this.
-
I would guess under the rule of Attila the Hun.
Not likely. Attila left original governments in place when he conquered an area, provided they paid a tribute. The original governments all involved themselves in the market to one degree or another (usually pretty heavily at that time).
You could also ask when has pure Communism been tried?
When has pure anarchy been tried?
One could, however I did not mention either of these; you did mention a "totally free market" and stated that it does not make a "satisfactory society" for anyone. I just wondered how you "knew" this.
-
Is a free market a natural phenominon?
Something that often happens is for one of the more successfull compeditors to attempt to supress the other compeditors .Many of the things that were done to make Standard Oil a big success in 1910 have since become illeagal because they forced a derth of competition. The role of government in a free market is in part to prevent "trust" building and monopoly establishment , preserveing the competition and the benefits of competition for the public by preventing the natural evolution of a totally unmanaged free market twards the dominance of a few giants.
-
Many of the things that were done to make Standard Oil a big success in 1910 have since become illeagal because they forced a derth of competition.
Standard Oil was operating in a regulated environment already. Not everyone could get into the various businesses, so competition was already stifled by the government. For example, many of Rockefeller's advantages came from the railroad businesses that he controlled - railroads were heavily regulated, and therefore not everyone could compete in that segment against him.
-
Is a free market a natural phenominon?
================================
Certainly not in the sense that a tree is a natural phenomenon, or wind, sunlight or the tides are natural phenomena.
Nature does not produce a free market. If it did, there would have been many of them by now--just as there are many trees, lots of sunlight and wind and rain and such.
The idea that somehow we are disrupting God's or Nature's plan by interfering in the way that goods or services are disbursed or recompensed is therefore silly. People will produce, mine, manufacture and distribute their goods and services in whatever way seems most beneficial to themselves given the society in which they live. This will vary, because human societies vary.
-
Nature does not produce a free market. If it did, there would have been many of them by now--just as there are many trees, lots of sunlight and wind and rain and such.
Funny, then, how many animals perform trades in nature.
-
Funny, then, how many animals perform trades in nature.
================================================
I suppose that you are going to claim that suckerfish, dung beetles and birds that eat bugs off off rhinos are somehow God's First Capitalists.
The world's richest packrat would only be worthy of an article if he collected things humans might regard as valuable: shiny buttons, beer poptabs, wedding rings or coins. A packrat far from humans with a forty pound collection of bone fragments, seedpods and shiny pebbles would not even make it into the National Geographic except as a has-been.
Economics is a social science in the same way psychology is a social science. This is largely because we do not understand its many complications.
Perhaps someday, we can manipulate genes so that no one ever suffers from dyslexia, mongolism, autism and such.
Perhaps someday we can eliminate greed, obsessive competitiveness, aggression and other antisocial behaviors as well. We could cause people to be more compassionate and altruistic by fiddling with their genes.
Locking up psychopaths for life is in the long run less productive to all concerned, so eventually some societies will seek to prevent psychopaths through genetics.
Putting autistic children in mainstream classes or locking them up forever is more like witch doctoring than education. Putting psychopaths in jail is the same sort of thing.
To the extent that we can cure mental disease through genetic manipulation, is is also likely that the key to a more satisfactory economic system could be developed in the same way.
Whether we do this seems dependent on how long it takes before an errant comet or asteroid takes us all out.
-
I suppose that you are going to claim that suckerfish, dung beetles and birds that eat bugs off off rhinos are somehow God's First Capitalists.
I was thinking more along the lines of primates that trade food for grooming or canines that trade food for sex.
-
>>I suggest that when one is rebuked by the seldom-seen chickencounter, one should consider a change in one's rhetoric.<<
She only rebukes me because she loves me. She never says anything to you because you're a disgusting coward with shit for brains.
I don't know. I suppose it must be the flare with which I return insults that gets all this attention. A simple, "dumbshit" isn't noticed I guess. Or this is also ignore:
"YOu are an imbecile.
A hooting, barking mad imbecile.
No long winded holier than thou sermon is forth coming for that one. But remember folks, you can all kiss my ass. especially you plane.
Not you Chicky. Message received. However, but I'm going to have to ignore it until such time as you feel the need to "rebuke" one of these anti-American terrorist loving sumbags once in a while.
Love you anyway.
-
Fair enough, Rich. What if I just scold the Bush apologists? ;D
-
>>Fair enough, Rich. What if I just scold the Bush apologists?<<
Let me know when you find one.
-
>>Fair enough, Rich. What if I just scold the Bush apologists?<<
Let me know when you find one.
=================================
I would say that anyone who claims that invading Iraq was a good idea, even though the WMD's did not exist is a Bush apologist.
There could be one hiding in your mirror, Richie.
-
Says the delusional socialist.
::)
-
Says the delusional socialist.
Is it delusional to claim that you are a fan of Juniorbush? You appear to worship him and all NeoCons.
-
Part of the leftest template is that anyone NOT vilifying Bush 24/7 is by design some supposed Bush worshipper.....not to mention listens to Rush all the time.
Then again, Xo apparently prides himself on how consistently wrong he can be
-
So you dislike Bush?
You deny ever listening to Rush?
-
Did you read the template above? Apparently not. Try again, and get back to me
-
If you cannot answer two simple yes/no questions, it is not worth the effort.
-
If you can't read the template, it is not worth the effort
-
So you dislike Bush?
I like him better than I used to.
You deny ever listening to Rush?
I haven't caught his show this month , I feel so ashamed.