Republicans TRY to Work While Dems Vacation

[billvon 3,120]

> Oil prices spiked 100% in 12 months . ..

Yep. The latest rapid rise started in early 2007 when Bush gave his energy initiative speech in Delaware. When he gave that speech it was around $50 a barrel. Way to go!

[Trent 0]

Quote

I haven't had more then a 3 day vacation in 3 years so I'm not sure who you mean when you say "people like you"

So then why assume that everyone else would just up and leave? Or that it's okay in this case?

Quote

I've always felt that Congress had the best work schedule of any company out there, they are only in session about 140-160 daya a year. So far this year the House only worked 4 5 day weeks. I wish I could get the schedule that our representitives have.

Hell yeah! I'm going to give it a run here soon I guess. How hard can it be!? Seriously. AND, if you're running for president or something, you barely have to show up!

I think she's only delaying because "fuck you". Seriously. She's just being obtuse. She really does deserve the ire she gets from the right. She knows the thing would pass and just wants to squirrel her parties riders in there.

It just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE that we should oppose getting our own oil close to home while getting better at reducing our usage. I fail to see how you could logically come up with a reason.

And like I said, not for you Phree, just because TRDIT (The Republicans Did It Too!) doesn't make it right. If that's the best you lefties can do, then it really does show that you're more interested in the politics than the outcomes.

Kallend, your comment makes no sense. Stop that!

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,120]

>It just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE that we should oppose getting our own
>oil close to home while getting better at reducing our usage. I fail to see
>how you could logically come up with a reason.

Same reason why you might not want to spend all the money in your 401k in the next ten years.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

>It just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE that we should oppose getting our own
>oil close to home while getting better at reducing our usage. I fail to see
>how you could logically come up with a reason.

Same reason why you might not want to spend all the money in your 401k in the next ten years.

if my 401k was fixed at its current value forever, i would rather spend it now than later. the amount of oil in the ground is not going to increase in 20 or 30 years. (yes i realize our efficiency will increase with time, but do we really want to be having this debate again in 30 years?)

while i can agree, and most people on both sides of this do, that we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels, limiting supply to increase the price in order to force the issue is not the way to do it. the left would like to see $10 a gallon gas, but that would cripple our economy, is it worth it? the truth is that there just aren't viable alternatives for most of us and until there are, we can help things a lot by using the resources we have here. if the left is so deadset against fosil fuel, why are we still using coal instead of nuclear?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[billvon 3,120]

>if my 401k was fixed at its current value forever, i would rather spend
>it now than later.

Ah! But it's not. If your 401K was fixed at its current monetary amount forever, and the economy was deflating rapidly, it would become an excellent investment. If the value of money deflates by 50%, you have just doubled the value of your money.

Likewise, if we hold onto that oil until we replace our SUV's with 60mpg hybrids, then we will double the time we can use that oil. If we drill it as fast as we possibly can we will run completely dry all the sooner.

>yes i realize our efficiency will increase with time, but do we really want
>to be having this debate again in 30 years?

Absolutely! I would much rather argue over whether we should drill in 30 years than argue over which country to invade because we've drained all our own oil.

>the left would like to see $10 a gallon gas, but that would cripple our
>economy, is it worth it?

We WILL see $10 gas; there is no question about it. The question is - when that happens, how ready do we want to be with alternatives? Do we really want to be subsidizing people's gas guzzlers, so that they have no alternative when it hits the $10 mark?

>if the left is so deadset against fosil fuel, why are we still using
>coal instead of nuclear?

Mainly fear, I suspect.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>It just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE that we should oppose getting our own
>oil close to home while getting better at reducing our usage. I fail to see
>how you could logically come up with a reason.

Same reason why you might not want to spend all the money in your 401k in the next ten years.

but you can argue that future earnings might make up for raiding the 401k. It's a risky play, but people in their 20s make so much less than they do later, sometimes it's valid.

But there's no new oil coming in. I don't want to touch it when we could be letting our competitors drain their supplies first. Even at an unrealistic rate of price growth, our oil will be worth at least double in another 10 years. And it seems more likely that it will grow faster than 7% per year.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Oil prices spiked 100% in 12 months and then immediately declined 10% upon the announcement. this explains why

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878


Can you prove speculation and the decision to lift the ban aren't factors?

I don't have to. Everything is a factor. But none are the factor. And I'd say that claims that speculation is 60% of the cost is wishful thinking.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> Oil prices spiked 100% in 12 months . ..

Yep. The latest rapid rise started in early 2007 when Bush gave his energy initiative speech in Delaware. When he gave that speech it was around $50 a barrel. Way to go!

Seeing as how January 2007 was 18 months ago, plus the data shows what you said is incorrect:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotusaw.htm

2007-Jan	01/05   	51.57     	01/12   	47.72     	01/19   	45.29     	01/26   	46.94     	   	   

2007-Feb 	02/02  	49.35    	02/09  	52.15    	02/16  	51.62    	02/23  	52.31    	  	   

2007-Mar 	03/02  	55.18    	03/09  	55.53    	03/16  	54.39    	03/23  	54.02    	03/30  	58.08   

2007-Apr 	04/06  	60.53    	04/13  	59.21    	04/20  	58.66    	04/27  	59.19    	  	   

2007-May 	05/04  	59.76    	05/11  	58.06    	05/18  	60.29    	05/25  	63.11    	  	   

2007-Jun 	06/01  	62.10    	06/08  	64.10    	06/15  	63.45    	06/22  	65.69    	06/29  	65.51   

2007-Jul 	07/06  	67.65    	07/13  	70.63    	07/20  	71.71    	07/27  	71.36    	  	   

2007-Aug 	08/03  	72.19    	08/10  	68.09    	08/17  	66.29    	08/24  	65.16    	08/31  	66.47   

2007-Sep 	09/07  	68.93    	09/14  	70.24    	09/21  	72.62    	09/28  	73.50    	  	   

2007-Oct 	10/05  	73.65    	10/12  	73.39    	10/19  	77.84    	10/26  	79.47    	  	   

2007-Nov 	11/02  	83.69    	11/09  	86.88    	11/16  	85.21    	11/23  	87.93    	11/30  	87.22   

2007-Dec 	12/07  	81.95    	12/14  	82.44    	12/21  	83.41    	12/28  	85.52    	  	   

2008-Jan 	01/04  	88.41    	01/11  	89.60    	01/18  	85.36    	01/25  	82.66    	  	   

2008-Feb 	02/01  	85.36    	02/08  	83.21    	02/15  	85.50    	02/22  	89.61    	02/29  	91.74   

2008-Mar 	03/07  	95.15    	03/14  	99.76    	03/21  	99.67    	03/28  	96.65    	  	   

2008-Apr 	04/04  	95.56    	04/11  	101.22    	04/18  	105.27    	04/25  	109.25    	  	   

2008-May 	05/02  	108.98    	05/09  	112.96    	05/16  	116.32    	05/23  	120.16    	05/30  	121.92   

2008-Jun 	06/06  	117.82    	06/13  	125.28    	06/20  	125.93    	06/27  	128.02    	  	   

2008-Jul 	07/04  	133.60    	07/11  	133.32    	07/18  	134.44    	07/25  	122.59    	  	   

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Oil prices spiked 100% in 12 months and then immediately declined 10% upon the announcement. this explains why

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878


Can you prove speculation and the decision to lift the ban aren't factors?

I don't have to. Everything is a factor. But none are the factor. And I'd say that claims that speculation is 60% of the cost is wishful thinking.

spec·u·la·tion /ˌspɛkyəˈleɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key -
–noun
1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking.

I'd say that speculation has almost everything to do with the cost of any commodity.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

con·ser·va·tion [ kònssr váysh'n ]


noun
Definition:

1. protection of valued resources: the preservation, management, and care of natural and cultural resources

2. protection from change: the keeping or protecting of something from change, loss, or damage




It's true, speculators are bailing. But gasoline consumption is down 2-4% and that alone is enough to lower prices rapidly. Just think what might happen if everyone inflated their tires properly

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

What's up with that? I haven't heard much here from the peanut gallery. I'd think that any thinking person would appreciate congress stayin in session until they could vote on some of the energy issues that the majority of Americans think are important.

It's a political stunt which amounts to nothing more than theater during an election season.

When asked by the Republican leadership to reconvene Congress the White House responded with:
“We don’t have plans to call Congress into session — it won’t make a difference if Democratic leaders are unwilling to bring up a bill for an up-down vote,”

Weeks ago the White House said:
PERINO: So the important thing that we need to do is…find ways that we can continue to express to the American people not to expect a short-term response. There’s not going to be a short-term response. And it would be irresponsible for anybody to suggest there would be.

Over a month ago the very same people who are putting on the theater voted against "Use it or Lose it" act which would have forced the oil companies to either use the 68 million acres of leases that they already hold or give them up to development by another company. Drilling on those 68 million acres is "drilling here, drilling now". The oil companies and the pro-oil folks in the White House and Congress (like Roy Blunt who received $100,000 from the oil industry over the last year) are doing nothing but promoting the warehousing, not development of oil leases.

[idrankwhat 0]

Ouch! While bumbling around on this topic I came across this tidbit. Bush must really be unpopular these days. First Cheney's not invited to the RNC Convention and now "Beijing George" gets a tongue lashing from his own party. From Republican House Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter's memo:
"Today, in his final term, the wildly unpopular President George W. Bush boarded Air Force One bound for the Beijing Olympics and a meeting with his chum Hu Jintao, the dapper ruler of a nuclear armed, communist dictatorship. ... Perhaps our Compassionate Conservative-in-Chief will bring our absent Democrat Congress some 'Made in (communist) China' souvenir t-shirts: 'Bush went to Beijing and all I got was this lousy five week, paid vacation.' "
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-republican-leader-rips-bush-2008-08-05.html

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Oil prices were clearly in a speculative bubble - you haven't shown that Bush's action was the reason it retreated.

so you admit it was the right thing to do.

[rushmc 23]

I agree with you that it is political theater but, it is Comrad Pelosi's theater, not the R's.

Do just a bit of research and see how many House Rules she broke to do what see did.

Yes yes yes, she has returned integrity, respect and civility back to the House

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I agree with you that it is political theater but, it is Comrad Pelosi's theater, not the R's.

Do just a bit of research and see how many House Rules she broke to do what see did.

Yes yes yes, she has returned integrity, respect and civility back to the House

Hey, they work one more day a week than the 109th yet they cut back on earmarks (a little). Not a bad start. But let's try not to stray from the reality that the song and dance going on is just for show.

[rushmc 23]

I find this quite interesting too.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi30-2008jul30,0,4903749.story



From the link

Quote

In a Gallup Poll conducted this month, just 14% of Americans said they approved of the way Congress was doing its job, the lowest rating in the 34 years Gallup has been asking the question. Most remarkably, Democrats now give Congress lower marks than do Republicans, the poll found.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Yes yes yes, the Pelosi House has been a light for all to follow

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Yes yes yes, the Pelosi House has been a light for all to follow

Hardly, my assertion that they suck less does not mean that I approve of the job, just the trend. They should be trying harder to wrestle back the power given to the executive branch by demanding more accountability. But to their credit they are ruling like they have a simple majority. But not to count out the R's contributions. Without their successful obstructionism, as evidenced by about 73 filibusters, the approval rating would probably be higher.

But again, let's not stray too far from the thread

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Absolutely! I would much rather argue over whether we should drill in 30 years than argue over which country to invade because we've drained all our own oil.

using our own oil (or anyone's oil) without working to find alternative to oil is just irresponsible and stupid. we need to both break our dependance on foreign oil AND end find alternative fuel sources. if we do it right, we can find alternatives before supply runs out therefore avoiding $10 gas. unfortunately, this will never happen unless to repulicans and democrats in congress come together. lets also not forget that a lot of other products are made from petroleum so we will still need it after we find somethng else to feed cars and airplanes.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[billvon 3,120]

>The latest rapid rise started in early 2007 when Bush gave his energy
>initiative speech in Delaware. When he gave that speech it was around $50
>a barrel. Way to go!

>Seeing as how January 2007 was 18 months ago, plus the data shows
>what you said is incorrect:

And then you post:

2007-Jan
01/05 $51.57
01/12 $47.72

Looks like you just proved my point.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Oil prices were clearly in a speculative bubble - you haven't shown that Bush's action was the reason it retreated.

so you admit it was the right thing to do.

Interesting mental leap you made.

Speculative bubbles end because there are bubbles. There may be trigger points, but it's simplistic to give any one trigger much credit for ending an unstable equilibrium. And there's still the question of long term - a temporary drop isn't the goal. We need a solution that will work for 2050, or even 2020, or we'll end up like Japan in the 40s.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

It is no wonder that congress has a lower approval rating than the president.

But let's not talk about that... I hear Obama said something about change!! Look! Shiny!

That is so damn funny and true of the typical "bumper sticker" american.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you that it is political theater but, it is Comrad Pelosi's theater, not the R's.

Do just a bit of research and see how many House Rules she broke to do what see did.

Yes yes yes, she has returned integrity, respect and civility back to the House

Hey, they work one more day a week than the 109th yet they cut back on earmarks (a little). Not a bad start. But let's try not to stray from the reality that the song and dance going on is just for show.

Yea they are doing great! What was the first thing they were going to take care of??? (energy) And what did they take care of first??? (min. wage) IGNORANT LIBERALS!!!!!!!!!!!! You think everybody would know by now that raising the min. wage does nothing but hurts the average famialy.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,120]

>You think everybody would know by now that raising the min.
>wage does nothing but hurts the average famialy.

Well, yep. People are stupid. Heck, some people still think the Iraq war is helping us, that just drilling for oil will solve all our energy problems, that allowing companies to violate the fourth amendment actually _protects_ our rights, and that sending a man to die in a war is "supporting" him. Some people never learn.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The latest rapid rise started in early 2007 when Bush gave his energy
>initiative speech in Delaware. When he gave that speech it was around $50
>a barrel. Way to go!

>Seeing as how January 2007 was 18 months ago, plus the data shows
>what you said is incorrect:

And then you post:

2007-Jan
01/05 $51.57
01/12 $47.72

Looks like you just proved my point.

You said: Yep. The latest rapid rise started in early 2007 when Bush gave his energy initiative speech in Delaware.

I cite:

2007-Jan	01/05   	51.57     	01/12   	47.72     	01/19   	45.29     	01/26   	46.94

So you were right about $50/bbl. No issue there. That was not the latest, or sharpest rise in the commodity, which is what I was pointing out.

Jan: 51
Jun: 62
Dec: 81
Jun: 117
Jul: 133

The sharpest rise was actually in the past 6 months, not year-and-a-half. The speculators took no real note of the President's speech.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!