Framing The Debate

Email Print posted by MRFred 05/17/2008 10:23:39 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

Talking points, 527's, swift boating aside, the race is being decided as we speak. The very people who put Bush and the current crop of republicans in power are going to take it way, one gallon at a time.

Every time Joe Sixpack fills up the first thing that pops into his mind isn't going to be " Gee, the gay agenda is threatening my marriage!" or other such nonsense.


< ITS SWIFT BOAT TIME KIDS! | Reintroducing "God" inside the schools...interesting. How? And why? >
 Display:
Framing The Debate | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
I dunno, Fred... (none / 0)
It seems I remember gas prices taking a pretty big dip between Aug and early November and Republicans getting a few bumps from it last time around. Of course, it's been a fairly steady climb since then, but if it worked before, you know they're going to do it again.

by MedfordTim on 05/17/2008 12:51:22 PM EST


well (none / 0)
Bush is begging the saudis to increase production and they arent playing along. Maybe they are sick of Bush too.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/17/2008 12:59:10 PM EST


[ Parent ]
I wonder about this too. (none / 0)

"Maybe they are sick of Bush too."

I strongly suspect this is true.  They're pissed that Iraq is going to become a Shiite stronghold, probably aligned with Iran.  The time may be coming when they're done with us. 

by bfaul on 05/17/2008 01:42:53 PM EST


[ Parent ]
That's why the Saudis were against (none / 0)

us invading Iraq. They knew what would happen.

This little mess we have created in their back yard has cost them a lot of money already. It's going to cost them billions in years to come and they are already making sure we are going to pick up the check. 

by z1p101 on 05/17/2008 02:18:21 PM EST


[ Parent ]
I doubt that will help (none / 0)

I so think oil may dip a little at that time.  Gas prices will probably remain elevated for a while after that though.  Just remember Tim that by then gas prices will probably "drop sharply" to somewhere between $3.50 and $4.00 per gallon.  I don't see this as having a pleasing effect on consumers.

The other side is that by the end of the summer I would bet that inflation will have come roaring to catch up with the rising cost of energy.  Everything else will be more expensive by then.  This is not going to help the Republican recover.

Just this morning I picked up a pound of coffee, three oranges, and a small box of oatmeal.  It cost $9.21 for those three things.  There's no simple fix for the trouble we're in. 

by bfaul on 05/17/2008 01:52:14 PM EST


[ Parent ]
musta been CHEAP coffee! (none / 0)
I get your point and of course relativity to the times is always a factor, but think of how many of the unwashed masses were ready to jump on the phony "gas tax vacation" even though it would mean practically no savings to them at all. If gas gets to, say, $5 by the middle of August and then has a few weeks of dropping by a nickel, the proles will be so happy to be paying only $4.50! that the truth of how badly they are being gouged will be drowned out.

Your added variable actually plays into that scenario. If the masses get a slight decrease in fuel costs at the same time food skyrockets, the hue and cry will be about food - and the pols will say, "but look how we're bringing fuel prices down! Soon that will translate to the marketplace as associated costs go back down."

It's one of the oldest shell games in the world and it works every single time. About the time of the elections, food will have dropped a miniscule but noticible amount, fuel will be "the lowest since last spring," Pundits and pols alike will all be "turning the corner" together. Then we vote.

And the next day...

**********

The Saudis don't have to say yes to Bush. They would have to make it look like McCain was the "savior," same as Iran did with the hostages against Carter way back when. Bush is of no political value; a candidate is. They just have to hope he can keep it together long enough to appear halfway viable.

That said, I think spherical ice sculptures in Dante's seventh ring have a better chance at surviving than McCain does of winning in November.

*************

"There's no simple fix for the trouble we're in."

Amen.

by MedfordTim on 05/17/2008 04:21:05 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Tim is very smart. (none / 0)
The guys in this photo control gasoline prices in America, and they aren't looking forward to four years of more congressional investigations, along with windfall profits taxes, and restrictions on drilling and refinery expansions. They can be counted on to lower gas prices. (Unless Democrat bans on drilling and refinery expansions really help their bottom line.)
do you get it Fred?

by KenTX on 05/17/2008 06:14:58 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Is he? (none / 0)
how would you know? You obviously dont even think before you post.

Killing Al Queda is something Bush is not interested in since the money to support them comes from Saudi Arabia.

Your fanciful notion of the American army somehow fighting an idea. Is pretty ignorant and getting old.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/17/2008 08:36:17 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Ken judges by Texas standards (none / 0)

...it's a pretty low bar...

by MedfordTim on 05/17/2008 08:41:30 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Oh I agree with what you posted for the most part (none / 0)
Bush is toast.

But an endorsement from KenTx is something that you dont deserve. He tries to make it sound like you are on the same page.  Thats all Im sayin.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/17/2008 08:46:43 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Tiny (none / 0)
I hate to break it to you, but Tim and I have been on the same page for years. Literally. We're pen pals. We boys. Just because we don't agree on political issues doesn't mean we can't be friends. That's what you'll never understand, because of your mentally ill hatred for conservatives.

by KenTX on 05/17/2008 10:18:17 PM EST


[ Parent ]
I know you SAY (none / 0)
you are everyones buddy

But your posts prove otherwise

The only thing tiny around here is your brain

by Chinese Democracy on 05/18/2008 03:38:26 PM EST


[ Parent ]
yes he is (none / 0)
Your fanciful idea of outlawing an emotion (hate) is even more tiresome, and slightly worrisome.

by KenTX on 05/17/2008 08:46:34 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Yea I think you better start worrying (none / 0)
because as a right wing nut job you are in deep shit

by Chinese Democracy on 05/17/2008 08:47:44 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Gas prices and elections (none / 0)

In 2002 from mid-May to election day saw a jump of about a dime.

2004 same period saw a couple cents decline.

2006 did see a half dollar drop in the period.

The 2006 one is fishy no doubt but keep in mind, gas begins to spike about now and declines at the end of summer. 

by ProfRich on 05/18/2008 01:32:18 AM EST


[ Parent ]
plus (none / 0)
to state the obvious, we saw how well that worked for the Republicans.

by richardshort2001 on 05/18/2008 01:39:20 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Thats true (none / 0)
2002 was the best election for the GOP, followed by 04, 06 was a disaster.  Bring on the gas price cuts!!! I get to save a few bucks and the pubs run out of town.

by ProfRich on 05/18/2008 01:57:41 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Geopolitics (none / 0)

The rise in oil prices has little to do with actual supply and demand, most of the speculation is that the geopolitical situation since the Iraq War has made the perception of oil supplies suspect. Ratcheting up of tensions with Iran, Russia, the war in Iraq, Venezuela under Bush has allowed these states to make a windfall. There are alternative theories that postulate that the rise in oil prices has been a deliberate policy to induce inflation after the collapse of the Dot.Com bubble. Well, those CEO's may say its not us, chances are its their money that is fueling the speculation and saying its, the magic word, "the markets". Such bull-shit.  

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/17/2008 08:15:09 PM EST


Sunday Ramblings... (none / 0)

 

 Of course, all of our energy problems will be spun as the fault of the "Democrats and the enviromental kooks."

Refinery Construction 

The fact is not one oil executive, Republican politician and a large part of the Republican base live anywhere near an oil refinery. It is quite easy to point a finger in those circumstances. Especially when they blow up due to shoddy maintenance, pollute the ground water and belch pollution in the air.  Regulations are in place to reduce or prevent those things.

Of course "breathing" and not having the privilege of becoming a human torch are considered unreasonable by Republicans when few bucks are at stake

Oil companies are simply making plenty of money now, thank you very much, they have no plans to bulid new refineries, in fact they beg off on the concern saying the "ethanol" will supplant the need for additional capacity.

The fact is oil companies see refining, regulations or not, as a low profit, high capitol expenditure endeavor and have been shifting production overseas while closing refineries here in the US. They prefer quick profits namely;to drill, sell the product and move on.

 
Exploration

 "Democrats are preventing drilling " is patently false.

In fact when faced with oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas in so called RED states, using Florida as an example, the governors of those states, led by Brother Jeb Bush (R)and RNC Chairman Mel Martnez (R) in this case led the charge to prevent drilling. NIMBY is alive and well in Republican land.

For six years the Republicans had big majorites in both houses. A coalition of Republicans and Democrats prevented drilling in ANWAR noting its impact on US gasoline prices would be pennies per gallon of the life field. Hardly worth the trade off for the risk to the area.

Oil shales and the petroleum industry over all .

 Republicans have been blathering about oil shales for years " the big Bakken find" 18 trillion dollars is the battle cry. comes to mind. Reminds me of Doc Browns "1.8 jigawatts!" Fact is ,this is old , old news:

 

 

This Administration has delayed the expeditious handling of oil shale patent applications and the early development of a domestic oil shale industry. It has allowed the deterioration of the domestic mining and petroleum industries including displacement of domestic markets by foreign imports.

 Who could the author of that passage be talking about? Any guesses? Lyndon Johnson. It is from the 1964 Republican platform. Oilshale. 1964. 44 years ago.

 

28 years fo Republican Unitary Executives to act...since then...nada just more spin from the right.

How we got here 

Republicans have waved the oil production red flag for years, blaming the Democrats at every turn, however, when in reality the oil companies simply chased cheaper crude overseas.* Experts warned us. They warned them. Big oil continued to do so until OPEC grabbed us by the balls.

(*They are doing it now with gasoline refining by the way. Cant wait to see how that works out.)

Since then,instead of the wake up call it was to some of us, there is always some "macro economic" reason why energy companies always seem to be behind the power curve when it comes to our energy needs.

Whenever the market price would spike " Democrats and environmental kooks" were the culprit, preventing , your choice, drilling, refineries whatever. Now they even have the balls to use the specter of alternate fuels as the excuse not to expand refining.

When the prices would dip industry and government inaction was due to the " market forces " that make this and that technology uneconomical.

The fact is this, oil companies only exist to make a profit.

Nothing more. Selling oil or overpriced Twinkies in their food marts, its all the same.

They are not beneficent  caretakers of the national energy supply, stewards of the environment nor are they "partners" in some great patriotic endeavor for energy independence as the Repuiblicans and the oil company advertising suggests. That's a smoke screen.

They are multinational corporations that have little or no concern about the impact of their production plans and policies and on the United States.

They will do whatever it takes to maximize profit. When the profit isn't ,in the companies estimate , high enough here...they will go somewhere else. Quickly. Leaving all the workers, the waste and a broken industry for someone else to cleanup.

So behold the  Republican National Energy policy: Bigger profits for oil companies, profits for Republican insiders, higher prices for you.

This perfectly logical statement that was true years ago

What happens when oil goes to $120 per barrel?

Energy companies have the incentive to find and produce more oil. KenTx

is not exactly true now :MRFreds Corollary

 What happens when oil goes to $120 per barrel?
Energy companies have the incentive to
  1. Find and hire more lobbyists to get government money for "reserch" and sweet lease deals on public land for easy money.
  2. Help of the Republican Party delay any meaningful technological advances in alternative energy production or conservation.
  3. Like in the pre OPEC days they will ignore and obfusacte the enevitable  to maintain high profit margins for as long as possible with a minimal investment in the future energy supplies for the United States. Once that is played out...
  4. move offshore ( See Haliburton)

by MRFred on 05/18/2008 12:23:30 PM EST


Also (none / 0)

Considering that the seven sisters, how what five, no longer have access to the remaining oil in large quanitities due to resource nationalism in the third world, they only way they can maintain profits is by manipulating the price so that whatever oil they do drill, and refine can make up from the loss in production. OPEC also has an incentive to keep oil prices high as lower investment in oil production, and the discovery of smaller and smaller reserves (save Brazil) means that in order to maintain profits they have to keep the price high. Any capitalist firm is out, like you said, for profit. They are not here to make sure that we have access to cheap resources. Also with the mortgage crisis in the US, inflation is NECESSARY to make sure the system does not collapse, read Minsky. This has a logic to it, and I hope Americans will one day see it. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/18/2008 02:02:02 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Im am not (none / 0)

anti capitalist, a socialist or any of the other epitaphs that will be flung by the righty's on this site.

Simply put, the cozy relationship between the Republicans and oil corporations is inherently in conflict with the best interests of the United States. They ( the oil companies and the Republicans) spin it as a great engine for the republic where in reality it is simply for self enrichment.

I am not a economist but I do know markets are reactive. Energy has such long lead times and capitol requirements that  by the time the "crisis" is over and prices fall because consumers cut back consumption any alternative and technological solutions are abandoned as uneconomical. Then the next crisis occurs , alternatives ramp up again and so on.

This time it appears to be different. We have market speculation thrown into the mix. Estimates are that speculation is adding 30%-80% to the true price of oil. I'm not sure what the true price of oil would because it is not a simple buy-sell transaction. None the less, the price is based of supply concerns.

Big Wall Street financial firms drained the mortgage market dry with risky paper. When that imploded they moved into funds speculating in energy futures along  with the so called sovereign wealth funds because they can make quick profits and  higher returns.

These guys weren't satisfied in wrecking the economy with housing they are now going to finish the job with oil. Here we are in " a time of war" and the administration is allowing oil companies and speculators to drive the economy into a recession, or worse. Dont worry Osama, George is on the case...Mission Acomplished!

As a result oil companies most certainly have no incentives now..they bet on the game they are playing in. Imagine if the NFL did that what an uproar there would be.

In fact ,restricting supplies and ignoring or suppressing technology ( through writing the  Energy policy favorable to them and lobbying) that would supplant or supplement oil is in their best interest. Meanwhile Bush and his big oil crowd play lip service to the problem.

One brief exception would be ethanol...the ethanol crowd has learned from big oil, and since most corn is grown in currently Red States, add big tax subsidies, speculation on corn futures it's a win win.  Big oil uses ethanol as a means to beg off building or upgrading refineries knowing full well we cant possible grown enough corn to meet our needs...pretty clever. Knowing that , the cycle continues.

 

by MRFred on 05/18/2008 03:49:30 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Not so fast (none / 0)

"These guys weren't satisfied in wrecking the economy with housing they are now going to finish the job with oil. Here we are in " a time of war" and the administration is allowing oil companies and speculators to drive the economy into a recession, or worse. Dont worry Osama, George is on the case...Mission Acomplished!"

 

 I would argue that the inflation we are seeing is a reaction to the double wammy of dot.com and mortgage meltdowns. In order to avoid a DEPRESSION, which is a deflationary phenomena, inflation has to come in to support the ability of companies and others to pay off their nominal debts. Why do you think the US dollar has been allowed to sink as much as it has? To stoke inflation. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/18/2008 03:56:07 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Awesome (none / 0)
I have a new desktop now.

by richardshort2001 on 05/18/2008 07:01:12 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Debunking Mr. Fred (none / 0)
Here is the fastest, most certain path to $10 per gallon gas:
1.    Withdraw American forces from the Middle East, and allow al Qaeda to overrun the oil producing states.
2.    Initiate a huge carbon tax on gasoline consumption.
3.    Block all domestic drilling in ANWR, continental shelf, Pacific offshore tracts, deep Gulf tracts.
4.    Block expansion of gasoline refinery capacity.

MRFred: "Democrats are preventing drilling " is patently false.

Think about Mr. Fred’s statement for a minute, then consider a few of these recent examples.

Alaska
New Mexico
Colorado
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Gulf of Mexico
Wyoming
Michigan
let's drill

Notice that Larry Craig is an advocate for "drilling". 



MRFred: “The fact is not one oil executive, Republican politician and a large part of the Republican base live anywhere near an oil refinery.”
NIMBY 

Here are a few articles (left, more left, even father left) to help the forum come up to speed on refinery economics, from a leftist point of view.
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 05:33:01 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Not buying it (none / 0)

The more I learn and the more I ponder I think OPEC is raising oil prices to punish us for our bad behavior in the Middle East.

I am starting to think immediately withdrawing from Iraq and leaving Iran the hell alone is the only way to drop oil prices.

It seems mighty convenient that the right insists that giving the oil industry its every wish it has ever had will solve all our oil problems but us invading one of the biggest oil producers in the world and threatening another is completely unrelated.

Put aside all of Ken's articles for a minute and just ruminate on how bizzare that construct is.

I suspect this is one of those things that is wired so deep into the power structure MSM will not even acknowledge it is a possibility. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 09:31:21 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Liberal Pea Brains (none / 0)
"I think OPEC is raising oil prices to punish us for our bad behavior in the Middle East."

Rich, since you've brought up that possibility, I invite you to read this article so you can become more educated on the subject.

Here is yet another example where liberal's initial reaction is appeasement. But rather than worry about making Chavez or Putin or I'madinnerjacket happy with the U.S., we need to take control of our destiny.

I'm talking about real solutions that work, not Green Party "renewables". When we find $14 trillion worth of oil in a single formation in the Dakotas, we ought to drill for it, refine it, and put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work, rather than purchase it in SuperTankers from the Middle East. 

We should convert all electricity requirements to nuclear, and use American uranium.

We should develop synfuels from American coal, and put millions of Americans to work in the extraction and refining industries.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 11:38:07 AM EST


[ Parent ]
So I'm right (none / 0)

I didn't read the whole article since it is written by some piece of shit hack at the Heritage Foundation and all (Ken's sources are always awesome!!!!) but it seemed to be saying I was right.

What the hell is your point? 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 12:25:05 PM EST


[ Parent ]
As usual, you are wrong. (none / 0)
Your solution to high oil prices is appeasement of America's enemies. As if kissing the ass of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will bring down the global price of oil. Is that the best you can come up with? Of course it is, because you're nothing but a simple minded liberal.

It never occurs to you guys that America would be better off drilling and refining $2 trillion/year worth of American oil, rather than importing $2 trillion/year worth of oil from our enemies. This would more than balance the trade deficit, creating a surplus, and putting millions of Americans to work in good paying jobs. This would create wealth inside the country rather than exporting wealth outside the country. The revenue from oil extracted on federal lands would balance the budget deficit.

I'm offering solutions here. What in the fuck are Democrats offering?

The reason it's so easy for me to defeat liberals in this forum is because you people are fucking stupid. I'm talking about low down, mentally retarded stupid. That's why you're sitting around trying to figure out how to increase other people's taxes, so you can redistribute income to mentally retarded people, thereby propagating and increasing the number of Democrat voters.

Rich, every day I try to mask my contempt for you. But sometimes, I just can't hold it back. You are an idiot.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 12:48:38 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Nation of appeasers! (none / 0)

That is what we are now, right?  70% of Americans want out of Iraq and they are all nazi-loving, cowardly appeasers, right?  That is your contention?

Run on it!  Add it to your awesome platform.  Nothing gets people to vote for you like calling them names, insulting and lecturing them.

Just stupid.

A few points.

One, I was against going in and against staying in from the beginning.  Realizing a side effect will be a reduction in gas prices doesn't make me (or Barak) an appeaser.  Thats just idiotic.  Now if Bush, say pledged to get the people behind 9-11 and then decided not to because they were Saudis and others (like Osama) were hiding in Pakistan and he did not want to make his business partners mad, that would be appeasement.

See, appeasement referred to not doing what you thought was right because you feared the consequences.  I (and Barak) are advocating what we think is right and you are trying to say the because this happens to have a postitive side effect its appeasement.

Of course, Chris Mathews showed us how much you pubs understand about what appeasement is so why am I wasting my time here.

The other point is in this scenario, we are the guys in gray.  Not in philosophy, or evil perhaps but we are the ones who invaded a country when the world said it was wrong and we are the ones who won't leave and we are the ones threatening to invade more.   So how exactly do you figure we are the British in this little WWII drama?

Oh, I forgot, you are a Republican, you don't know shit about WWII. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 01:52:11 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Framing The Debate | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: