Politics As Usual

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think it is a good idea to quit buying for the reserves during a war. If we weren't at war and there were provisions in the law that allowed the Prez to quit buying for the reservers, I would say quit buying for a bit to see if the price comes down.

All of this discussion of course, is ignoring a significant other choice - REDUCE THE TAX ON GASOLINE!!!!! That would bring prices down quickly.

I am against reducing the tax, though, as I hate you SUV drivers and your children, too. Let them eat cake!!!!

Are you saying that the president has the authority to release oil from the reserves, but it is illegal for him to cause a cessation of buying?

Interesting, if true.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Could you clarify whether you believe it would be better or worse to stop buying, for the short term, additional reserves? It seems like there are three options here:

1. Release some of the existing reserves.
2. Don't release any of the existing reserves, but stop making purchases into the reserves for a while.
3. Don't release any of the reserves and continue buying oil to increase reserves.

Seems to me that would be a good idea, if the price spike is caused by demand to stop or reduce our buying in the short term, thought that should be weighed against our goal to stock pile 1 billion barrels in the next few years. I understand that we are currently at about 650 million or so.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the wholesale price changes for such a short period, is there really any benefit to consumers? If not, is there any benefit to the President politically, apart from the windfall to the oil companies which contribute to his campaign?

Short term yes, long term no. The political benifit is cosmetic - the president is feeling your pain and doing something about it.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
The R's are becoming the D's. R's are using all of the tools that we decry, the only difference being what they use the tools to accomplish.

I guess the Rs are the new Untouchables. "I have become what I have beheld and I am content that I have done right."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I guess the Rs are the new Untouchables. "I have become what I have beheld and I am content that I have done right."

My guess is that if Bush wins in November, you will see a more conservative fiscal agenda the next 4 years. If Bush loses, you will also see a more conservative fiscal agenda the next 4 years.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Slur? Ah, first you make the empty assertion above for a base, and then make your Hitler argument. I'm not quite clear as to how this is even remotely pertinent to what I said, but maybe the important point is, it doesn't have to be. The Hitler Option stands by itself, doesn't it?

First time I've seen anyone lose an argument here by comparing themselves to Hitler.

BTW - Your sources suck!

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I am a pro-gun person, but I have never seen anyone argue persuasively that the framers of the Second Amendment believed that there is a right to bear firearms that is not defined in some way by the need for a well-regulated militia, or that United States v. Miller was wrongly decided. This business about individual rights and group rights is a canard. There is a right to bear arms, just as there is a right to free speech. But the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and its limits are defined by the purpose stated in the text of the Second Amendment -- the need for a well-regulated militia. Just as the right to free speech is not unlimited -- e.g., time, place and manner restrictions, and libel law. Those who want to enlarge the right to bear arms are usually engaged in an effort to ignore the plain text of the Second Amendment, not the sort of things conservative usually abide.

I like guns, but I don't pretend that the Constitution gives me a right to keep and bear them.

Can you summarize the Establishment Clause next, Oliver Wendell?

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
If Bush loses, you will also see a more conservative fiscal agenda the next 4 years.

Why? Cuts in military spending?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the wholesale price changes for such a short period, is there really any benefit to consumers?

It depends on the timing. Clinton did this at the end of Sept of 2000. It dropped the price right before the Nov 2000 presidential election in which his VP Gore was the Dem nominee. I wonder how much bigger of a loss it would have been for Gore had Clinton not timed that release so perfectly.

Do you see now why GWB is a saint for showing restraint on this issue?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please. I'll believe it when I see it.

Again, if you watched Fox News, you wouldn't need me to cite this for you. Yawn.

Clinton released the reserves at the end of Sept. 2000 (Hi Al Gore!) . By early November 2000, right before the Nov election (Hi Al Gore!), the prices at the pump had dropped some. I believe it takes about 40 days to see a drop at the pump. Clinton began the release of the strategic reserves on September 22, 2000. Add about 40 days to that and what do you get? BINGO!!! The November 2000 election.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...3/daily23.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Can you summarize the Establishment Clause next, Oliver Wendell?

You would have prefered I respond to bilmore's "you lose" post by saying, "no, I win"? I refused to pitch my posts to the GOP IQ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Again, if you watched Fox News, you wouldn't need me to cite this for you. Yawn.

Clinton released the reserves at the end of Sept. 2000 (Hi Al Gore!) . By early November 2000, right before the Nov election (Hi Al Gore!), the prices at the pump had dropped some. I believe it takes about 40 days to see a drop at the pump. Clinton began the release of the strategic reserves on September 22, 2000. Add about 40 days to that and what do you get? BINGO!!! The November 2000 election.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...3/daily23.html

Club's cite pointed out that the wholesale price rebounded within days. You have posted something suggesting that retail prices were lower 40 days later. What you posted doesn't remotely suggest that the lower gas prices in early November had anything to do with the release from the strategic reserve.

I hope FOX News doesn't run stories this stupid. It snowed on the East Coast later that winter, but that wasn't caused by Clinton's action either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

double post

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you saying that the president has the authority to release oil from the reserves, but it is illegal for him to cause a cessation of buying?

No. I am saying that I don't know if there is a provision allowing him (or her) to stop buying.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed, and I still won't vote Democratic. What does that say . . .

That you have misplaced priorities.

S_A_M

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My guess is that if Bush wins in November, you will see a more conservative fiscal agenda the next 4 years. If Bush loses, you will also see a more conservative fiscal agenda the next 4 years.

Do you really think that Bush will work to rein in Congressional spending if there's no reelection campaign hanging over his head? He's having trouble keeping this highway bill under his self-imposed cap and (as Ty has already admonished me) that belt-tightening is just for show. Cripes, these days we can't even build a decent-priced antimissile laser we don't need.

btw, this EJ Dionne column makes an interesting argument that the Bush deficits actually paint Kerry into a difficult corner. I don't agree with the way Dionne takes an oversimplified it's-one-or-the-other approach to choosing between deficit reduction and "popular programs" (whatever they are these days) but anyway it seemed appropriate to this discussion...