Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Cutting taxes improves the economy which leads to a larger tax base which leads to higher revenues.

In a better functioning democracy, people who think this is true would not be allowed to vote.

[ltl/fb]

Lately, it has kind of been reminding me of a chihuahua. Or perhaps a lhasa apso.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Your sources suck.

And you look like a bucket of shit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Taylor is unspecific about timing, so it's a little hard to tell how long that $31 price held. This suggests to me that this government action only works if it's unanticipated by the market, because there is some short term inelasticity of supply, but that this effect doesn't last very long at all. Which is to say it really wouldn't do much good, as Taylor seems to acknowledge.

Hense my use of the word term short term.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


And sooner or later we'll have the Second Amendment debate on this board and I'll kick your ass. I like guns as much as the next guy, but you guys just try to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part.

Seems like a logical reading. The Supreme Court ignores the "Congress shall pass no law" part of the 1st.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you guys think prices at the pump would fall in this situation? Did it happen in 2000? If not, consumers aren't seeing any benefit, and middlemen are enriched. Retail gas prices are slow to drop.

The prices did briefly drop at the pump.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let's see. Across the bench we have:

Higher Taxes
Affirmative Action
Overly-Broad construction of the First Amendment
Overly-restrictive reading of the Second Amendment.

Which party was he talking about again?

Sullivan does have a good point there. 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. This is not a proud time for true conservatives (in the economic, and fiscal, senses.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hense my use of the word term short term.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hense my use of the word term short term.

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?

Originally posted by Not Me
Retail prices dropped.

Cite, please. I'll believe it when I see it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And sooner or later we'll have the Second Amendment debate on this board and I'll kick your ass. I like guns as much as the next guy, but you guys just try to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part.

You'll lose that one, and this comes from an anti-gun person.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sullivan does have a good point there. 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. This is not a proud time for true conservatives (in the economic, and fiscal, senses.)

There's always the Libertarian party.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
There's always the Libertarian party.

No good. If I were a D, I couldn't vote for Nader, either.

[ltl/fb]

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

More votes for R's? Are you hoping that when R's get control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency, R's will suddenly stop using their power to do things like run up budget deficits, infringe on civil liberties and protect favored markets at the expense of free trade, and will instead use their power to increase civil liberties, actually cut needless programs, and generally promote the free flow of the market in all senses, and not just those that are at the time in question politically expedient?

Oh wait. R's already have control of those. Maybe they really really need the Supreme Court too, not that the SC seems to be blocking them from removing barriers to trade or cutting programs.

[Not Me]

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.

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!!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You'll lose that one, and this comes from an anti-gun person.

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.