Bush blames Dems for high oil prices

Email Print posted by callisto 07/14/2008 05:55:23 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id /21134540/vp/25677192#25677 192

Bush has no humility whatsoever and that actually makes him very flawed as a human being

This guys is unbelievable, I think the word is brazen, euh having huge cojones, being hypocritical or just having no soul. oh wait I don't believe in souls,... devoid of any decency whatsoever

El Presidente: "We must continue to implement good conservation policies" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, really, this bunch? a year ago they would have called you a pinko leeebral from San Francisco for even using the word "conservation"

So now "dickhead in charge" actually has the nerve to fully blame high oil prices on the Democratic Congress. 
Why yes oil prices tripled when Dems took lead in 2006 :) and it has nothing to do with Bushco policies :)

Bush would shoot a baby on national TV and walk out 15minutes later and blame the Dems for killing babies with their abortions, I'm sure of it, he would have the nerve.

TheMostHatedLivingPersonInT heWorld: "Congress should expand and enhance domestic refining capacity"
what the hell does Congress have to do with that? that's up to the oil companies to do so, but they don't because that would lower prices

This guy hasn't got a grain of humility, he's so incredibly arrogant, sure it's not an uncommon trade in state leaders, but they tend to lay low or show some humility after they screwed up.

I wish the Dems would stop fighting these people in a gentlemen way and hit back hard, I don't say they should lie, indeed they should be better than the Repugs in that way and not lie, but keep beating them, even if they're down, with the truth. They've prooven over and over again what kind of filth they are, threat them as such and try to dump them. The sould of half a million dead Iraqis would be grateful.
< THE YOUNG TURKS ANNOUNCE NEW HOME ON XM SATELLITE RADIO | Breaking News(!): Lou Dobbs Says Something Stupid >
 Display:
Bush blames Dems for high oil prices | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden)
Well (none / 0)
The closest we can come to blaming Dems in charge is to blame Clinton for doing next to nothing on these issues during his 2 terms. I know, there was a repub Congress that was out to get him, but still.

I mean, Gore was there which makes it even worse.

At any rate, we can't ignore Reagan's role in all of this. Carter, for all of his flaws, was dead right on the need to conserve end develop alternative energies.

Late in his tenure he introduced a comprehensive energy plan to do those things (one goal being that the US would derive 20% of its energy from solar by 2000), and as a symbolic gesture he put solar panels on the White House roof.

Reagan came in and took promptly removed the solar panels and dismantled just about everything else Carter had planned regarding energy. Now we get about 20% of energy from nuclear power, gas is insanely expensive and well, you know the rest of the story.

Just imagine if Reagan had run (even partly) Carter's plan. Or Bush Sr, Or Clinton...it's sad really.

by ihavenobias on 07/14/2008 07:13:50 PM EST

true, but (none / 0)
you have to take into account the political and mainstream climate at that time

in defense of Clinton and Gore: oil prices were very low and most Americans didn't want to listen to any talk about conservation.
Even worse, you would get ridiculed, didn't Gore have a nickname, Ozon Al or something, talking about these issues would not only get you attacked, but a majority of the people would join in the laughter and call you weak.

Come on, let's be honest, not so long ago most Americans would laugh with smaller European cars, they would even be hostile against it when you brought up the issue of gas mileage "we don't want to drive small European cars, we drive big SUVs"... mainstream wasn't there

I've seen Gore and people like him who have been talking about this, be ridiculed for years. Gore got a Nobel price, the world celebrated his message, except in mainstream America, only the left was behind him and this was what 10 months ago?

by callisto on 07/14/2008 07:59:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
crude oil (none / 0)

All commodities are going up together. This isn't a supply issue.

 The dollar is being devalued. If the dollar were strong gas wouldn't be that much different than a couple years ago

by acroso on 07/14/2008 10:19:09 PM EST

You are exactly right (none / 1)

Which is why we have to get rid of the economically irresponsible Republicans, end this pointless and extremely expensive war and stop going deeper into debt!

That is the biggest problem with the economy (that and deregulation).

I am hearing a lot of talk along the lines of "Yes, but what is Obama going to DO to fix the economy."

Well, how is this for starters.  He is gonna stop doing the stupid ass shit the Republicans do.  Simple? Yeah.  Sexy? No. True? Of cooooouuuuurrrrse.

You that old prehistoric hackneyed joke "Hey Doc, every time I do this, it hurts like hell!  What should I do?" "Stop doing that."

Why has that stuck around forever?  Because its true!

Sure, Obama needs more but as always, we are limited to two choices.  We all understand the stupid shit we are doing with the economy has got us here to the brink of the Greater Depression.

Mr. Obama? "Let's stop doing the stupid shit."

Mr. McCain? "DRILL!!!!!"

Yeah, tough choice.

by ProfRich on 07/14/2008 11:08:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama wants Americans to suffer. (none / 1)
Americans currently pay well over $400 billion per year for imported oil. The money is going to bad guys you don’t like, such as Hugo Chavez and the House of Saud.

By drilling for American oil, we can help balance the trade deficit and the budget deficit, while creating hundreds of thousands of high-paying petroleum industry related jobs.

Drilling jobs.
Refinery jobs.
Pipeline jobs.
Offshore platform jobs.
Oil field truck driving jobs.
Roustabout jobs.
Oil field service jobs.

More jobs for more Americans creates more tax revenue. More drilling on federal lands generates more oil royalties for the U.S. Treasury.

Here are Barack Obama’s poll numbers from three weeks ago, before he started attacking oil drilling.

Here are Barack Obama’s poll numbers today, after he attacked oil drilling.

Wow! That is one hell of a drop! Let’s keep talking about the subject of Barack Obama being against oil drilling. Then we can talk about Barack Obama being against guns. Then we can talk about Barack Obama planning to immediately initiate redeployment from Iraq.  Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s drug use in his younger days. Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s lack of military service. Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s statements against white people.

It’s going to be a long, hot summer, and there won’t be much else to talk about. So let’s discuss Barack Obama all day, all of the time. It worked in 2004.

By the way, Barack will not be allowed to flip flop on this issue. McCain was against drilling when gas was $1.20. Obama is against drilling at $4.30.

by KenTX on 07/14/2008 11:39:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Unsolicited advice (none / 0)

The scoreboard game really only works when you are winning.  Now don't get me wrong, if I were a betting man, I would bet Grampa Death will eke out a lead in a poll or two over the next week or so but since he hasn't led any poll at all for six weeks now, you might not use the polls to trash talk.

Basically you seem to be arguing that this drilling idea is so popular a minority of voters support McCain now.

Oh, I also just read a poll where more people (61%-58%) see McCain as a flip-flopper than Obama.  Nice to see the facts seeping through the media "truthout".

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 12:10:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
losing issue for Obama (none / 0)
"Basically you seem to be arguing that this drilling idea is so popular a minority of voters support McCain now."

What I'm arguing is that Obama is on the wrong side of an obvious losing issue. The 15 point drop in his (Newsweek) poll numbers in three weeks, simply offers more evidence.

This recent Zogby poll indicates that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of drilling for American oil.
drill goddamit!!
Obama had numerous opportunities to change course on drilling. It's a no brainer. But the longer he digs in, the greater his problems multiply. He looks like an out of touch elitist, who waves his arms around, talking about hope for the hopeless, and help for the
helpless.

"you might not use the polls to trash talk"
You will hear me say this a million times, just like I say every election season: The only poll that counts happens on November 4. A 15 point drop is interesting because of the trendline.

If I was John McCain, I would want to be 5 points behind as an underdog, until the final week, when I roll out the October surprise. Kind of like the UT-USC game.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 12:30:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You? (none / 0)

You are rolling out the October surprise?

Kenny is gonna win this election for McCain?

Wow, Ken.  Will this be in the form of a TYT post?  Will we get to witness this history here on the board?

It will be just like that time in high school where you almost won the big game but didn't.  It will be soooo awesome even daddy will call up to tell you how great you are.

Also, I seem to remember your complete derision for the Obama by 15 Newsweek poll a few weeks ago.  Gallup was all that mattered back then.  Now Newsweek is the only poll that matters.  Gallup (Obama has gained 3 points in the same span) somehow doesn't make the conversation.  Weird.

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 09:53:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Deep Thoughts By ProfRich (none / 0)
ProfRich: "You are rolling out the October surprise?"

Let me check my post again: "If I was John McCain, I would want to be 5 points behind as an underdog, until the final week, when I roll out the October surprise."

Now I understand the primary reason why you and I disagree so often. It's because you're stupid.

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 03:12:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do yourself a favor (none / 0)
and don't put that one to a vote.

In a vote of who's smarter, I think Rich would get a veto proof majority on this site :)

unless, you rig the vote and get some peeps van de Faux News boards to come and support you here :)

by callisto on 07/16/2008 04:39:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for being my whip (none / 0)
But I fear Ken's sock puppet caucus might be hard to beat.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 10:19:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Does the GOP pay you? (none / 0)
"The money is going to bad guys you don’t like, such as Hugo Chavez and the House of Saud"

1. Bush doesn't call the House of Saud bad guys, he actually calls them his friends, they've helped Bush througout his llife
2. Saudi Arabia is not seen or threated by the US as a bad guy
3. If you're calling Chavez a bad guy, what do you call the Bush administration, how many hundreds of thousands of deaths has Chavez caused
4. Chavez has a legitimate beef with the US, they tried to oust him from power, I would be pissed too

(Texas Kenny how strong is your urge now to call me a Chavez lover? Nowhere in there do I profess any love for the guy, just asking some objectivity)

"By drilling for American oil, we can help balance the trade deficit and the budget deficit, while creating hundreds of thousands of high-paying petroleum industry related jobs"

you could do the same by investing in infrastructure, but I now that's almost a commie thing to do

Do people need to keep explaining to you over and over again that the oil companies already have giant leases, but don't develop them, they haven't invested in refinary facilities for decades (some say to keep prices up), ....


Your way of comparing poll numbers is of course not only NOT scientific, but just insane dumb, that way you can argue everything eg: since Obama wore that shirt on TV a couple of weeks ago, his poll numbers have dropped.

It's named causality, look it up. You need to proof it, something you haven't done. Your analysis might be true, but so might another hunderd reasons.

"Then we can talk about Barack Obama being against guns. Then we can talk about Barack Obama planning to immediately initiate redeployment from Iraq."

do you even get the news where you life? 2 reasons why the so called left is getting angry with him, read: he's been going your way.

"Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s drug use in his younger days."

in his younger days. Bush was snorting coke in the oval office when he was in his 40s, when daddy sat in the chair

"Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s lack of military service"

McCain has said that you don't need it to become president. BTW in what kind of fascïod world do you live? You can't become president if you haven't learned to take orders without question? Oh yes, might come in handy when corporations tell you how to act.

by callisto on 07/15/2008 08:01:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX, (none / 0)

SUCK MY DICK!

ha ha

by BENS MISSING GOATEE on 07/16/2008 09:17:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Finding a way to lose (none / 0)
The democrats always seem to find a way to lose, even on issues they should easily win.  This is a perfect example of Republicans figuring out how to frame an issue to ensure a win (at least on the issue).  We have been over and over the arguments for this issue and there are perfectly resonable cases to be made for not drilling, unfortunatly none that can be summed up in a sound bite that 90% of the voting public can digest.

Yet again the Republicans are proving that no matter how terrible they are on the policy side, they always seem to kick the democrats ass on marketing and politics.  Lets hope Obama can bring back some of his magic and start taking back some of these issues.  Being a democrat is starting to feel like being a Bills fan in the 90's.   

by alphasigmookie on 07/15/2008 01:16:48 AM EST

wrong! (none / 1)
"there are perfectly reasonable cases to be made for not drilling"

You're getting a PHD in this stuff, so you should know better.

The long term solution is a nuclear powered electrical grid, and liquified coal for internal combustion engines.

Until we get there, we gotta drill in order to remain competitive in the global economy. You can't advocate spending $700 billion per year for imported oil, instead of generating hundreds of thousands of petroleum jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Let the oil men drill, and let the market dictate the outcome.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 01:36:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
less effective than gas tax holiday (none / 0)
The problem is that the whole "drilling" issue would have about as much impact on prices as McCains retarded "gas tax holiday" issue.  The main reason I actually support drilling (and they can go ahead and fix the "enron loophole" or whatever they're calling it while there at it) is so that they can get rid of all the excuses.  As long as there is someone/something else to blame we can ignore the real problem...that there's just not enough oil to go around (at least not at under $100 a barrel).  As long as the Republicans can make the Democrats the ones to blame they're in deep shit.  The worst thing that could happen to McCain would be democrats opening up drilling...then he'd be forced to come up with a real energy policy. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/15/2008 01:57:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX Energy Policy (none / 1)
Mookie, you're the undisputed expert in the field, and I've never seen you pull any punches for anyone in the forum. But I didn't hear either support or critique for my plan to split atoms for electricity, and liquefy coal for transportation.

I think that can get us through the next 200 years while the rest of the world scrounges to compete. My only objective is a super-competitive America that cannot be defeated in the global economic wars to come. If there's no oil to be had, then the rest of the world is screwed, while America is sitting pretty on a mountain of coal and uranium. (Yeah, I know Canada and Australia have a lot of uranium, but it's time to make then the 51st and 52nd states.)

You sustainability guys need to focus on American Hegemony, rather than goofy stuff like "global warming". Psshhh! As IF!

Drilling for oil is a temporary, stop-gap, patch, until we can get our technological house in order.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 02:37:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
all bow to kenny (none / 0)
"I think that can get us through the next 200 years while the rest of the world scrounges to compete"

you're so oblivious to anything outside your borders it seems

you know where the US is ordering their nuclear plants from, as are most other countries (China just ordered a bunch)? France, they're the leading authority on nuclear power plants

you truely think no one will find a better way? not only are other countries developing new technologies, so is the US, some great things on the solar field are being done in the US. Some Arabian countries are going to plaster the desert with solar panels, so they'll be fine. Europeans are working on the next generation of nuclear. Japan keeps advancing finding ways to the most out of their energy, they're starting now even to "teach" the Chinese. The alternative energy market in London is raising capital for a string of companies, ...

"You sustainability guys need to focus on American Hegemony"
this makes you a bad guy, just as the Saudies
btw so funny, you know the thing about drafting other countries into the Union, but hey that way you finally might loose Australia as an allie

by callisto on 07/15/2008 08:22:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Energy plan (none / 0)
Ken, your energy plan is no more complete than the democrats who refuse to accept nuclear, drilling and carbon sequestration as parts of the solution.  I've already made my case for an energy plan and I stick by it.  I know you've read it because you replied at least 10 times in the thread.  I don't feel the need to repeat every time there is a new thread on energy issues.  If you want a refresher here is the link again:

http://www.theyoungturks.co m/story/2008/5/26/2520/4476 9/Diary/Mookie-s-Energy-Pla n

The only thing i'd add is electrified freight rail systems which can be synergistic with upgrading to a smart grid and improving energy transmission for wind and solar.  

by alphasigmookie on 07/15/2008 01:09:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mookie Energy Plan (none / 0)
I have no disagreement with your plan. It contains all the basic elements of my plan:
1. Get out of my way and let me drill.
2. Nuke up.
3. Put coal in the gas tank.

Plus all the alternative stuff that makes people of the BP commercials happy.

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 03:01:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mookie only becomes polite once per year. (none / 0)
That's when another SEC football team kicks the living shit out of his Ohio State Buckeyes.

He stays nice for about two weeks, then he goes back to being a rude guy.

Hey. Two out of 52 is better than nothing.

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 03:06:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Humility (none / 0)
I guess everyone's got to be wrong once a year.  In general though i'd rather be right than polite. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/16/2008 02:29:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If I could pick... (none / 0)

I would pick for my team to win a bowl game against the SEC every decade or so.

Particularly when it is for the National Championship.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 03:05:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LosuERS (none / 0)
"I would pick for my team to win a bowl game against the SEC every decade or so. Particularly when it is for the National Championship."

It's never happened before.
national losers 

buckeye bob

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 07:46:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bring on GA (none / 0)
Third/Tenth time's a charm!  Who will the SEC send at us this year, UGA?  Actually in some small way I hope we get there and lose again just because I know how much it drives you crazy!  You know when we beat USC we're going to be there (BTW USC tickets go on sale on Sunday for anyone who wants to see the "game of the year"). 

by alphasigmookie on 07/17/2008 02:11:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)

Just let them drill where they want and watch the oil companies drag their feet. I'm sure They have their eyes on a few hot spots but the idea that they are going to spend billions on new rigs to carpet bomb the new fields is ridiculous. I don't here oil companies (or Ken) complaining about their bottom lines.

Open the new fields tomorrow and 3 months from now when the American people didn't get their instant gratification and they find out that the oil companies are barely moving on these new opportunities the tone will change.

by z1p101 on 07/15/2008 02:46:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
wish I could find it (none / 1)
I wish I could find the thread where zippy and I disagreed over whether Democrats would take a political hit for blocking expansion of drilling.

I know I made the claim on several occasions, but there was one post where zippy said I was drilling a dry hole on this issue.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 03:05:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

you won't find it.

What I do say is that there is plenty of oil out there (and other energy sources like your liquefied coal and shale oil that you never shut up about but don't explain why large privately owned companies are not utilizing them) but that it is getting more and more expensive to get to.

You can do what you usually do by quoting me out of context. Then I can link to the entire post or the top of the thread like I always do.

It is interesting how you did not argue with anything I said there but made an attempt to change the subject.

by z1p101 on 07/15/2008 03:23:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You know what (none / 0)
I actually never thought of that point. Very interesting and it makes some sense.

This will give me some comfort if we actually do ramp up domestic drilling...unfortunately, the Repubs will then argue that we need to be patient and that we're securing benefits for the future, etc.

Hopefully Dems can play off of the impatience.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 10:52:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Repug through and through (none / 0)
here we see the prime example why the Repugs get things so wrong:

you said yourself smookie was getting a PHD in this stuff, which would make him an "expert", him being an expert you of course claim he's wrong

tell us oh great Texas Ken what shall we do to solve the problem?
Note how you say THIS IS the solution, not CAN BE a solution, you're so full of yourself if you know at this point what the solution will be

by callisto on 07/15/2008 08:07:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Crude Oil Prices (none / 0)

The price of Oil is not high. This is not a supply issue with regard to the supply of oil. “Drill Now” campaign is essentially full of shot. I’m not opposed to drilling more but to think that oil supply is the root of the problem is just a distraction.

 Every commodity is going up and they are going up together: wheat, rice, silver, gold, crude oil, etc. Every one of them.

 You could double the supply of oil or cut in in half and eventually it would level out again. In the current situation this is not happening.

 So this is a supply issue, but it's not a issue of supply of crude oil....it's the supply of U.S. dollars that is out of control (We keep creating them.)

 Helicopter Bernake has the interest rates pegged to low. I'm not an economist, but I've taken some intermediate demands side economics courses so I know the ruse. If inflation is rising you must fight back. Bernake is not fighting back.

 

Why is he not fighting back? Hell if I know. My theory would be something to the extend that there are so many banks on the verge of collapse due to the fractional reserve banking scam along with these mortgage companies that are on the verge of collapse that Bernake is actually scared to raise rates.

 

Regardless, evil liberals (Bush, McCain, and the Democrats) will seize your property through taxes and if they can’t get your savings that way they will take it via devaluing your currency all the while promising new and more and expanded entitlements to you that they don’t have the faintest chance in hell of being able to follow up on even if they manage to turn the next generation into slaves of the state.

 

The bottom line is the dollar is crap. Protect yourself and whatever assets you have from it. That’s what Warren Buffet is doing right now hedging against the dollar. Foreign stocks, commodities and futures markets against the dollar. The current system will always punish those who have faith in the system or even remotely believe that the government is capable of acting fairly. For the government to act fairly, we would have had to have had a republic and we haven’t had that in years. Now we have a Democracy that naturally swallows up anything that is prosperous. Some conservatives who still have faith in the system think that their party will protect them from the corruption of the left, but they are sadly mistaken.

 

What do you want to bet that bank-run Shuma, Kennedy, Dodd and the rest of the Communist class in Washington have also taking out big wagers against the dollar over the past year all the while voting to devalue it further?

 

So don’t depend on the government to protect your assets as they continue to debase the currency. They are the ones that will be destroying the assets not protecting them. There is plenty of investment opportunity out there right now…none of it in the sess-pool the liberals have wrought on us here in the states (and when I say liberals I’m talking about the Republicans too since they are barely better than the Dems. The R’s just slow the destruction down.)

by acroso on 07/15/2008 06:53:44 AM EST

You're simply wrong (none / 0)

"The price of Oil is not high. This is not a supply issue with regard to the supply of oil. “Drill Now” campaign is essentially full of shot. I’m not opposed to drilling more but to think that oil supply is the root of the problem is just a distraction."

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.  Oil is precisely the issue.  While it's true that there is no immediate supply problem everyone knows that any small interruption is going to kick the stock markets hard in the ass.  That's why they are buying commodities instead of stocks.  That's why the price of oil spikes at the slightest hint that supplies will get shorter.  This is the new model for oil futures so get used to it.

This is just the beginning.  The supply will tighten up and tighten up.  Small glitches in supply will become economic events.  If demand doesn't fall off due to the high prices we will begin to enter a period of true shortages.  Watch the airlines.  They are the canaries in the coal mine because of the nature of their business.  They will begin to fail one by one.  There will be a larger and larger number of businesses reporting lower profits or downright losses as their cost of production rises and rises with the price of energy.  The internet model of business will suffer as UPS and Fedex and the Postal service sag under the weight of rising fuel costs.   The stock markets are going to slip and slip and slip.  One big event like a bad hurricane in the Gulf or a military event with Iran and they are going to tumble hard, not like the gentle stuff of the past several weeks.

The credit and mortgage crisis will be greatly aggravated by the rising cost of everything.  Mortgages that were formerly sound will start to fold up.  It will no longer be a subprime loan crisis but a general loan crisis as consumers find themselves throttled beyond their ability to keep up and start to walk away from debt that was seen as reasonable in better times. 

The time to have done something real would have been during the last decade of cheap fuel prices.  The action would have been to make a national effort to move to more efficient modes of transportation, like rail, smaller and fewer automobiles, and to enhance and encourage every single alternative source of energy.  The administration chose instead to encourage waste and inefficiency among the public while using military power to sieze control of new supply sources.  The Democrats have preached the gospel of alternative fuels and conservation but have not walked the walk.  The die is now cast.  Our economic future will be set long before any domestic production can be ramped up.  Domestic production would have to double to have a real and lasting effect on prices and that is a pipe dream.   It ain't gonna happen.  They don't even know if there are substantial reserves in these offshore areas they are screaming about. 

Cheney said early in his presidency that conservation was not the American way.  We're now going to pay for that short sighted stupidity.  The stupid bastard still has no real energy plan besides attacking the Middle East and drilling frantically in offshore waters.   The new American way is upon us.  It consists of spiraling energy costs and forced downgrading of our standards of transportation.  The infrastructure changes may well prove to be beyond our financial ability now.  Republicans will find that in circumstances like this the national debt does in fact matter, as people lose faith and confidence in our ability to repay and begin to dump the dollar with ever increasing urgency.

Each of these things has been foretold over the last few years ad-nauseum.  They didn't want to listen, didn't want to act.  Now we pay.

by bfaul on 07/15/2008 12:18:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Commodities (none / 0)

Then why is Gold going up in proportion with oil? Goil n

In fact all commodities are going up together.

Gas isn't going up in the UK like it is here because several years ago the Pound and the Dollar were trading on equal footing and now the Pound is double the dollar in value.

I think it's the supply of dollars that is increasing. 

 

Here's an interesting graph for you.

 pic

 

(It’s a candlestick chart. The bars are the price of oil in oz Au. The blue and red lines are 50 and 200 day moving averages. Change periods to weekly for a longer term view.)

 

 

 

So Gold (a commodity) is running right up with gold...along with most of the other commodities. If Bernake does not start fighting inflation, comodities will continue their upward run. 

by acroso on 07/15/2008 02:41:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But... (none / 0)

Oil is kind of a super commodity.   It directly affects the prices of other commodities.  As for gold, people buy it for the same reason kids go home to mamma, for security.  It's considered a stopgap against inflation, so it stands to reason that gold will go up when inflation does.  Rising oil prices will cause inflation to go up and that will push gold up as well. 

The price of oil "tumbled" today to "only" $138.50. I'll bet you it won't matter, it won't stay down (if oil could be said to be "down" at 138 in the most meaningful sense of the word).  It will be up above 145 again by the end of the week (or by tomorrow evening).  It may even surprise me and  stay below 140 for a few days.  In the end though it won't matter, it will keep moving up.   I hope I'm wrong, I wish I was, but I don't think so, I think we're headed to $200/barrel territory.

by bfaul on 07/15/2008 04:27:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
kinda of.. (none / 0)

But not really. All currencies are based on commodities. You have to ask yourself how do you protect yourself against the supply of dollars increasing...or even how are investors protecting themselves.

 The answer is to invest in a different currency. Commodities are a form of currency (directly such as GOLD or silver or wheat.) They keep their value when the dollar is destroyed (mostly.) The other choice would be foreign investments (which have been doing well lately if you invest right.)

 The third choice would be the futures market which is what Buffet as been doing with all his money (hedged against the dollar.)

 So commodities are up broad spectrum this year all against the dollar. Investors think there is a bubble (and who knows maybe there is but I don't think so) but if you make the assumption that Bernake has the interest rates pegged artificially low (a good assumption in my opinion) when it's possible that he should have it set at 10% or higher, then the supply of dollars is going to keep on coming in, and commodities will keep rising.

 IMHO

by acroso on 07/16/2008 04:43:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Plunder (none / 0)
The solution to this problem is right under our noses.  All you Texans better pack up the truck and move to Beverly, because the USMT air strikes are coming.

by OneHitKill on 07/16/2008 02:24:48 AM EST

Bad news for Jesse. (none / 0)
Texas controls most of the Air Force Bases, as well as significant Army bases.
 
Even with the odds stacked 49-1, we can take you guys.

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 02:48:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They outsource the Tx invasion (none / 0)
bring over all those muslims who are crazy enough to blown themselves up and tell them they can go fight Bush in his home state :)

wave after wave of those religious nuts will come
maybe they can have Bin Laden lead the charge, Bush could never catch him anyway :)

by callisto on 07/16/2008 04:46:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's a great idea! (none / 1)
“Bring over all those muslims who are crazy enough to blown themselves up and tell them they can go fight Bush in his home state.”
I don’t know why al Qaeda keeps attacking New York? That’s where all the Democrats live.  That’s where the people who don’t want to fight al Qaeda live. That’s where the friends and allies of al Qaeda live.

In fact, al Qaeda sent this message to red states and blue states: "Any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy. Any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy." 

If they want to fight against the Great Satan, they should come to Texas.

We're ready for them.

Unlike New York (or Detroit), al Qaeda would be easy to recognize in Texas. And everybody is packing heat.
holster 
 
In the Great State of Texas, all citizens are allowed to apply for a license to carry concealed handguns.

We have gun racks in our pick-up trucks.
pick up 
We have gun racks in our living rooms.
rack
We even have gun racks in our beds.
bed

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 09:13:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They hate the gays like you (none / 0)
"I don’t know why al Qaeda keeps attacking New York? That’s where all the Democrats live.  That’s where the people who don’t want to fight al Qaeda live. That’s where the friends and allies of al Qaeda live."

it's the Democrats, especially the progressives that they hate, the reasons why family value Repugs hate Dems are the same reasons why they hate progressive Americans.

Muslim conservatives and Christian conservatives agree on more things than they disagree on (their god has a different name of course)

You let your policy depend on what Al Quada says now?

"Unlike New York (or Detroit), al Qaeda would be easy to recognize in Texas."

I was waiting for you to make that stupid remark, besides you obviously having some 1940s thoughts, you just showed how little you know about muslims: they're not al Middle Eastern, btw would you even be able to always see the difference from latinos?, they can be black, asian and white as virgin snow, not only those muslims from the Balkan, but what about the people from the Causasus, you know the region that gave it's name as synonime for white: caucasian :)

by callisto on 07/16/2008 03:39:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
al Qaeda loves blue states (none / 0)
Allow me to repost this information:

In fact, al Qaeda sent this message to red states and blue states: "Any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy. Any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy."

by KenTX on 07/17/2008 12:50:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It all makes sense now (none / 0)
That explains all those terrorist attacks in red states and how the blue states have remained so untouched.

by ProfRich on 07/17/2008 01:51:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
it should make sense (none / 0)
Al Qaeda released this message after the 2006 election.

The 9/11 attacks occurred in 2001.

They now understand the difference between red states and blue states, and they know who their friends are.

by KenTX on 07/17/2008 02:21:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Read, dammit! (none / 0)

First, you might want to take a refresher course on the U.S. political system.

"Any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president..."

And you think that applies to the 2006 congressional election?

And, as always, your source has that quote being from Oct. 29, 2004.  Those Al-Qaeda guys were way out in front of those 2006 congressional elections, huh?

But we agree that you were full of shit when you said the GOP never tried to take Olberman off the air (Fox had a petition) and that the red states have been blissfully terrorist attack free since some crazy conservative blew up a building in Okie City, right?

 

by ProfRich on 07/17/2008 10:47:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK, if you prefer. (none / 0)
Al Qaeda released this message before the 2004 election.

The 9/11 attacks occurred in 2001.

They now understand the difference between red states and blue states, and they know who their friends are.
 
The post still highlights the idiocy of your position:

"It all makes sense now. That explains all those terrorist attacks in red states and how the blue states have remained so untouched."

You're so stupid that I don't even know why I bother explaining it to you.

by KenTX on 07/17/2008 11:03:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rest of us don't even know why you're not on FOX (none / 0)
in what coocoo world does your brain operate to think that rightwing religious nuts would consider gay loving, atheist tolerating Democrats their friends?????

not talking about friends, but more about who helped them the most when it comes to justify the terrorism they commit, built support amongst moderate muslims:

1. not following through well with the war in Afghanistan
2. not catching Bin Laden
3. invading a muslim country that didn't attack America
4. killing hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent muslims in Iraq
5. bombing houses of innocent muslims
6. torturing innocent muslims
...

all these things have made Bin Laden and his cause more popular and they are ALL on Bush's head, not even taking into account that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

by callisto on 07/17/2008 07:13:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What am I, a bucket of truth? (none / 0)


You're so stupid that I don't even know why I bother explaining it to you.

I know why.  It's because you're a compulsive arguer with an under-developed sense of shame.

Imagine my surprise when my little self-promoting blog link led to an actual discussion of which states would side with Al Qaeda in the event of a three-way war between the Democratic Party, the GOP and "the terrorists."  Shiiiiit, Ray Bradbury couldn't come up with this stuff. 

by OneHitKill on 07/18/2008 07:48:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More clueless than MSM even? (none / 0)
are you really that thick? It can't be that bad can it? They even made the analysic on American MSM.

Al Qaeda knows statements like that would help Bush get reelected and they wanted to keep Bush in charge, his Iraq War has only helped Al Qaeda, especially since he won't engage them seriously in Afghanistan (please don't confuse the Taliban and Al Qaeda now)

If an American President would stop all the money wasting in Iraq and direct real military force upon Afghanistan and seriously invest in human intelligence, Al Qaeda could be rooted out AND Bin Laden would be caught

only one who would likely do this is a Democratic President, so no Bin Laden will do anything to keep Repugs in charge, they've proofed they can't catch him and keep making the wrong choices

by callisto on 07/17/2008 07:03:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Al Qaeda is a credible source to you? (none / 0)
so Kenny, you acknowledge that you accept Al Qaeda as a reputable source that needs to be listened to?

or is it only this statement and none of their other ones? NO, you couldn't be such a huge hypocrit, you wouldn't pick and choose like that, that's not what your kind do

SO question: is Al Qaeda a credible source of information for you, do you put trust in their analysis?

by callisto on 07/17/2008 06:55:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX, (none / 0)

SUCK MY DICK!

ha ha

by BENS MISSING GOATEE on 07/16/2008 09:21:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Would we have Vince? (none / 0)
Cause then we would win.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 10:16:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oil companies already have... (none / 0)

...leases to drill on 68 million acres. They want MORE? Puhlease.

But the Repugs throw out the phrase "We need to drill." and they put out the ridiculous frame that the Dems don't want to give land to the oil companies to drill on. This drilling propaganda needs to be forcefully countered by the Dems and by left wing pundits when they are on MSM.

 

by centurion on 07/16/2008 07:19:59 AM EST

Bush blames Dems for high oil prices | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: