GOP blocking the Speculation bill

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
Getting so tired of this nonsense. You got the GOP blocking the alt energy bill and now this bill until the Dems allow drilling in anwr and the likes. Wish some of these dems would grow some fucking balls. I just don't understand the type of people that allow themselves to be bulled around all the time.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted Wednesday to move forward on a bill meant to crack down on oil speculators.
Democrats say speculation in oil futures is a significant reason why oil prices have risen this year.

Democrats say speculation in oil futures is a significant reason why oil prices have risen this year.

But Republicans vowed to block the Senate from taking up any other measure until the Democratic leadership agrees to vote on other energy-related issues.

Republicans want to offer up to 28 amendments to the bill on a wide range of energy topics, including increasing domestic oil production.

The Democrats want to limit them to two amendments.

"This is not some arcane subject; this is the biggest issue in the country," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "It's on the floor now. We say, let's deal with it. We're not afraid to vote on their amendments, they shouldn't be afraid to vote on ours. Let the Senate work its will on the No. 1 issue in the country."

The Republicans said they would not prevent the Senate from taking up the housing bill passed earlier in the day by the House, although a final vote on that bill is not expected before the end of the week.

Democrats oppose Republican measures to lift bans on offshore drilling and oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. See how gas prices have risen across the country »

Republicans say the process would not be fair unless they can offer all of their amendments.


Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, accused the Republicans of wanting to score political points rather than pass legislation.

"The problem with our Republican colleagues is that they want to debate, not act. ... Even when they are offered what they want, they say no."

Menendez suggested there was bipartisan support for measures meant to limit speculation, encourage conservation and provide tax credits for renewable energy.

"Why would you not move forward on the items that you have consensus?" he asked.

The disagreement between Republicans and Democrats could result in Congress leaving Washington for its monthlong recess in August without passing any measures to lower gas prices, which are averaging above $4 a gallon at the pump.

Experts have said lifting bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore would not affect the oil market for several years, but Republicans have argued that the psychological effect of opening more areas for oil exploration would bring prices down.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the main sponsors of the bill, pleaded for Republicans to help "wring excessive speculation" from the oil markets. He says speculation is responsible for 71 percent of the increase in a price of a barrel of oil this year.

Some analysts say speculation has added between $40 to $60 dollars to a barrel of oil.

But other experts have questioned the extent to which speculators -- rather than basic market principles of supply and demand -- have driven up the price of oil.

Wednesday morning, a barrel of light, sweet crude was priced around $128 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, down from the $147 a barrel record set July 11 and the lowest price since June 5.

Dorgan said ending speculation in the oil market would be a sensible first step toward lowering gas prices that both sides of the aisle could agree to.

Republicans "have come up with a hundred excuses why they don't want to do that," he said.

But Republicans say they want the opportunity to offer "real" solutions that will lower energy prices, which includes more drilling to expand domestic production. See what factors are driving up the price of oil »

"The Republicans know that American people want us to do something real, something big, something important about the price of gasoline," said Sen. Pete Dominici, R-New Mexico. "And the only thing that we can do that is important is to release large quantities of crude oil and natural gas that are owned by American people and that have been locked up for 27 years in moratoria."

Dorgan, however, said the Republicans are trying to suggest Democrats are against additional domestic oil production, noting that there are millions of acres of federally controlled land and off-shore drilling sites that are open to exploration but have not been used by oil companies.

"It's a false choice that the minority side says we should drill and that the majority side doesn't," Dorgan said.
advertisement

The bill in the Senate would provide more resources and authority to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to detect and punish speculation.

It would help stop speculators from using foreign markets to manipulate the price of oil in the United States, require more transparency in oil markets and limit the trading of market players who do not intend to receive the oil they purchase.
 
"This is not some arcane subject; this is the biggest issue in the country," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "It's on the floor now. We say, let's deal with it. We're not afraid to vote on their amendments, they shouldn't be afraid to vote on ours. Let the Senate work its will on the No. 1 issue in the country."

I agree with him. It is the number 1 issue in the nation, I'm glad that it won't be a knee-jerk emotive response and the Rs are insisting that more be heard.
 
Too bad they did not insist that more be heard before we invaded Iraq.


Selective reasoning controlled by politics.
 
I agree with him. It is the number 1 issue in the nation, I'm glad that it won't be a knee-jerk emotive response and the Rs are insisting that more be heard.


Yeah, I guess we have to solve the entirety of our energy problems in one fell swoop rather than focusing on short term solutions to the immediate problem of rising oil prices brought on by speculators.

What nonsense.

I could get behind an honest effort to study the issues and develop the optimal solutions but that's not what this is. This is a refusal to do anything at all unless the Republicans get what they have already decided is the best solution.
 
Yeah, I guess we have to solve the entirety of our energy problems in one fell swoop rather than focusing on short term solutions to the immediate problem of rising oil prices brought on by speculators.

What nonsense.

I could get behind an honest effort to study the issues and develop the optimal solutions but that's not what this is. This is a refusal to do anything at all unless the Republicans get what they have already decided is the best solution.
And vice versa. IMO this isn't an R or a D issue, this crosses the lines. It's too important to slap quick knee-jerk legislation onto it. I'd bet that rather than solely offer what they believe can be the only solution at all they offered sincere (laughable in an election year) compromise something could get done. (Except it is election year and both sides are going to work to find issues like this where they can say the other side is unreasonable).

I suspect things like this will keep going on until they are not electioneering with legislation. Vote on the Amendments, if they are bad reject them, if they are good keep them. That can actually get something moving.
 
Good old fashion lame duck syndrome in congress in an election year. Just sucks that its also something that really needs to be handled now.
 
And vice versa. IMO this isn't an R or a D issue, this crosses the lines. It's too important to slap quick knee-jerk legislation onto it. I'd bet that rather than solely offer what they believe can be the only solution at all they offered sincere (laughable in an election year) compromise something could get done. (Except it is election year and both sides are going to work to find issues like this where they can say the other side is unreasonable).


This legislation is to deal with short-term price increases brought on by speculators, something that can be rather easily dealt with through a simple piece of legislation. It isn't some knee-jerk blunderbuss approach to the overall problem, which I wouldn't support at this point without further study (which, coincidentally this legislation also calls for).
 
The continued politicization of this vital issue is disheartening at best, and criminal at worst.

Every voter should pull the lever for the independent candidate for Congress this fall. Independents don't worry about party posturing. I'm so worn down by the relentless politicization of every issue.
 
And vice versa. IMO this isn't an R or a D issue, this crosses the lines. It's too important to slap quick knee-jerk legislation onto it. I'd bet that rather than solely offer what they believe can be the only solution at all they offered sincere (laughable in an election year) compromise something could get done. (Except it is election year and both sides are going to work to find issues like this where they can say the other side is unreasonable).

I suspect things like this will keep going on until they are not electioneering with legislation. Vote on the Amendments, if they are bad reject them, if they are good keep them. That can actually get something moving.


But doesn't that run counter to your statement from about five minutes ago that knee-jerk legislation isn't the answer? Whether the amendments pass or fail, it's a knee-jerk reaction.

This is a targeted piece of legislation designed to deal with a specific identified problem that simply requires an increase regulatory effort and nothing more. If excessive speculation isn't a problem than the legislation isn't going to do much harm. However, to the extent that speculation is driving up the price of oil, this would work to deal with the problem in the short-term.
 
The continued politicization of this vital issue is disheartening at best, and criminal at worst.

Every voter should pull the lever for the independent candidate for Congress this fall. Independents don't worry about party posturing. I'm so worn down by the relentless politicization of every issue.

yah if they could ever get one thats not some sort of slob. Im tired of both sides. I dont fit into either of thoes parties.. at some point like in all things in life.. this gap will be filled.
 
Good old fashion lame duck syndrome in congress in an election year. Just sucks that its also something that really needs to be handled now.
I fully agree. Each side will attempt to position themselves as the "victim" of the other side's partisanship. This really does not need to be the issue they play with.
 
But doesn't that run counter to your statement from about five minutes ago that knee-jerk legislation isn't the answer? Whether the amendments pass or fail, it's a knee-jerk reaction.

This is a targeted piece of legislation designed to deal with a specific identified problem that simply requires an increase regulatory effort and nothing more. If excessive speculation isn't a problem than the legislation isn't going to do much harm. However, to the extent that speculation is driving up the price of oil, this would work to deal with the problem in the short-term.
It does not counter that. I think they proposed legislation that was unacceptable without amendment for this purpose, and they are limiting amendment again for this purpose. I also think that the Rs are putting so many Amendments forward for political purposes. I wish they wouldn't use this issue because it is, as I said before, the most important issue of the day.

Working through the Amendments to the bill would definitely make it no "knee-jerk" any longer. This would slow these fools down. We need them to take a serious look.
 
Yeah, I guess we have to solve the entirety of our energy problems in one fell swoop rather than focusing on short term solutions to the immediate problem of rising oil prices brought on by speculators.

What nonsense.

I could get behind an honest effort to study the issues and develop the optimal solutions but that's not what this is. This is a refusal to do anything at all unless the Republicans get what they have already decided is the best solution.
And insisting that clamping down on oil speculators as the problem is not focusing on one solution they have already decided is the best? Get a fucking clue. Oil speculators are world wide. How do the democrats propose we clamp down on speculators outside the U.S.?

The only thing that will happen is by hampering U.S. speculation on oil futures is we'll give up what minimal control we have on sustaining our oil imports as needed. And if we want to put future oil imports at risk, we'd damned well better ave domestic sources available to take up the slack.

Damned right we need to look at long term solutions to this problem. We need long term because the fucking band aid approaches being proposed now are a dollar short and a day too late. We took a band aid approach the last time this happened in the 70s, got oil prices down, and today is the long term result.

Both parties are in it to score election year points. And some of those election years points are coming from refusal to consider ideas from the other side. The republicans are stupid to block ideas that push for development of alternate energy sources. (Though I personally oppose ANY ideas that set up a perpetual subsidy situation like was happening with corn ethanol - and thereby support any politician who opposes such subsidies.) And the democrats are stupid to block ideas for developing domestic sources of oil. The fact is if we want to avoid another episode like we are experiencing now, and like we experienced in the 70s, then we need to look to rapid development of alternate sources AND rapid development of domestic oil supplies AND rapid development of domestic refining capability.

Both parties are being smart in looking to long term solutions. But both are being stupid in opposing long term ideas just because they come from the other camp.
 
It does not counter that. I think they proposed legislation that was unacceptable without amendment for this purpose, and they are limiting amendment again for this purpose. I also think that the Rs are putting so many Amendments forward for political purposes. I wish they wouldn't use this issue because it is, as I said before, the most important issue of the day.

Working through the Amendments to the bill would definitely make it no "knee-jerk" any longer. This would slow these fools down. We need them to take a serious look.

Passing this legislation in the interim does nothing to prevent a serious look.

If this legislation included funding for alternative sources, increasing CAFE standards and any other Democratic proposals to deal with the long-term energy problems I could understand the Republicans offering up amendments detailing their long-term proposals, including opening up oil exploration. But it doesn't.

Either vote for this bill or vote against it, but blocking it through a filibuster is nonsense.
 
And insisting that clamping down on oil speculators as the problem is not focusing on one solution they have already decided is the best? Get a fucking clue. Oil speculators are world wide. How do the democrats propose we clamp down on speculators outside the U.S.?

The only thing that will happen is by hampering U.S. speculation on oil futures is we'll give up what minimal control we have on sustaining our oil imports as needed. And if we want to put future oil imports at risk, we'd damned well better ave domestic sources available to take up the slack.

Damned right we need to look at long term solutions to this problem. We need long term because the fucking band aid approaches being proposed now are a dollar short and a day too late. We took a band aid approach the last time this happened in the 70s, got oil prices down, and today is the long term result.

Both parties are in it to score election year points. And some of those election years points are coming from refusal to consider ideas from the other side. The republicans are stupid to block ideas that push for development of alternate energy sources. (Though I personally oppose ANY ideas that set up a perpetual subsidy situation like was happening with corn ethanol - and thereby support any politician who opposes such subsidies.) And the democrats are stupid to block ideas for developing domestic sources of oil. The fact is if we want to avoid another episode like we are experiencing now, and like we experienced in the 70s, then we need to look to rapid development of alternate sources AND rapid development of domestic oil supplies AND rapid development of domestic refining capability.

Both parties are being smart in looking to long term solutions. But both are being stupid in opposing long term ideas just because they come from the other camp.


Your objections to the bill may be well-founded, but that doesn't mean that the bill should be filibustered. It just means that people should vote against it.
 
Passing this legislation in the interim does nothing to prevent a serious look.

If this legislation included funding for alternative sources, increasing CAFE standards and any other Democratic proposals to deal with the long-term energy problems I could understand the Republicans offering up amendments detailing their long-term proposals, including opening up oil exploration. But it doesn't.

Either vote for this bill or vote against it, but blocking it through a filibuster is nonsense.
What it does is make it so they can pretend that they have solved the issue. As I said, they purposefully made it untenable so that they could position themselves to attempt to look "victimized". You just fall for it.

This isn't "interim" solution, this is what the Ds believe should be done. They do not want to speak of the bridge of time from now and when the research finally bears fruit.
 
fuck that I'm glad the republicans are not rolling over to the anti-business democrats.
I look at as a sparring session to get the cons in shop to stop the windfalltax after Obama is elected.
 
Back
Top