GOP blocking the Speculation bill

Damocles said:
BS.

Once the patches begin they do not end. One issue at a time thrown together to show they are "doing something" will be the end result and a future even larger problem will arise through this inanity.

Again, this is like pretending that illegal immigration gets "fixed" by amnesty programs. An effect of the market is not the problem.

I'm glad they are focusing on a long-term solution, and wish the Ds would rather than attempt quick patches so they can have an emotive issue for election time.
Click to expand...


The Democrats have focused on long-term solutions as I mentioned previously. The Republicans filibustered that bill. So instead they offered up this bill to address short-term prices. Lo and behold, the Republicans filibuster this effort as well.

Tell me what the problem is with increasing regulation of speculators other than your hatred of regulation generally.
 
Superfreak said:
Really? So the US currently produces more oil than it uses? How the hell can you justify that comment?

Side note: Oil prices are driven by WORLDWIDE demand vs. supply. Even if your moronic statement were true, it would not change that dynamic.
Click to expand...

It's true. Supplies outstrip demand already. I think that's globally. The US doesn't produce more oil than it produces. Of course not. But market-wide, it's true.
 
Dungheap said:
The Democrats have focused on long-term solutions as I mentioned previously. The Republicans filibustered that bill. So instead they offered up this bill to address short-term prices. Lo and behold, the Republicans filibuster this effort as well.

Tell me what the problem is with increasing regulation of speculators other than your hatred of regulation generally.
Click to expand...
I have stated so several times in this thread. Repeating it because you refuse to hear is clearly useless.
 
A quick google images search turns up a bunch of graphs, but they're all from 2005, showing that supply was just under demand then. Presently, supply outstrips demand.

Increasing oil production domestically by 90,000 barrels a day is just about enough to make up for the gap left by Iraq's not-yet-back-on-line oil production capacity.
 
Damocles said:
BS.

Once the patches begin they do not end. One issue at a time thrown together to show they are "doing something" will be the end result and a future even larger problem will arise through this inanity.

Again, this is like pretending that illegal immigration gets "fixed" by amnesty programs. An effect of the market is not the problem.

I'm glad they are focusing on a long-term solution, and wish the Ds would rather than attempt quick patches so they can have an emotive issue for election time.
Click to expand...
I wonder if I should just continue quoting this every time you ask that question again.... I think this is irresponsible knee-jerk legislation that attempts to treat symptoms rather than dig into actually resolving the issue. This is scapegoating legislation that aims at a symptom and not a cause and we must take this issue far more seriously than knee-jerk emotive reactionary legislation that consistently wind up punishing the wrong target.
 
Damocles said:
I have stated so several times in this thread. Repeating it because you refuse to hear is clearly useless.
Click to expand...


Oh, right. It doesn't do what it isn't designed to do so it's useless since it can only deal with the particular problem it is designed to deal with.

Gotcha.
 
That's the crux of the problem right there - treating symptoms. Style over substance!
 
Dungheap said:
Oh, right. It doesn't do what it isn't designed to do so it's useless since it can only deal with the particular problem it is designed to deal with.

Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Which is not what I said. Treating a sniffle when you are dying of cancer is worthless. I am glad somebody, albeit with a bit too much gusto, is trying to underline the serious nature of the problem rather than attempting to treat the sniffle.
 
Sounds like right wing doubletalk to me.

More research as to why the house caught on fire while it burns around us.
 
uscitizen said:
Sounds like right wing doubletalk to me.

More research as to why the house caught on fire while it burns around us.
Click to expand...
And the solution? Spit on it from the driveway. The GOP is saying, "We have to get water on that fire!" The Ds are saying, "We have to ban sulfur tipped matches!"
 
Damocles said:
And the solution? Spit on it from the driveway. The GOP is saying, "We have to get water on that fire!" The Ds are saying, "We have to ban sulfur tipped matches!"
Click to expand...

the dems have a further research provision in the bill. See if water puts the fire out, more gas that the repubs want will not help a bit.
 
cawacko said:
exactly, and additional regulation to try and control this will drain liquidity from the market and send speculators overseas, not stop them.
Click to expand...

Ohh that old overseas fearmongering. Overseas is cracking down on them worse than we are.
And this is global not just USA.
Of course the third world countries governments are cheaper to buy control of.
 
Damocles said:
And the solution? Spit on it from the driveway. The GOP is saying, "We have to get water on that fire!" The Ds are saying, "We have to ban sulfur tipped matches!"
Click to expand...

You're flailing.

It's the democrats offering short term solutions (and long term, too, but that got shot down in a different bill). The Republicans are saying they need to go begin drilling a new water well, despite the fact that there's more water than they need already presently available. Democrats are saying we need to catch the arsonists who are lighting the fires (speculators). Neither solution is going to save the house that's burning right now, but one is going to work more quickly than the other. And one has really no impact on anything at all, and one does.
 
uscitizen said:
the dems have a further research provision in the bill. See if water puts the fire out, more gas that the repubs want will not help a bit.
Click to expand...
Right, instead of hooking up to the fire hydrant the Ds want to pray for rain.

Rain will come, some time, but we need that water now.
 
ib1yysguy said:
A quick google images search turns up a bunch of graphs, but they're all from 2005, showing that supply was just under demand then. Presently, supply outstrips demand.

Increasing oil production domestically by 90,000 barrels a day is just about enough to make up for the gap left by Iraq's not-yet-back-on-line oil production capacity.
Click to expand...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Also from 2005, but I have seen nothing of substance to suggest that new demand since 2005 has been outstripped by new supply.

I will wait for you to provide some evidence of that.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You're flailing.

It's the democrats offering short term solutions (and long term, too, but that got shot down in a different bill). The Republicans are saying they need to go begin drilling a new water well, despite the fact that there's more water than they need already presently available. Democrats are saying we need to catch the arsonists who are lighting the fires (speculators). Neither solution is going to save the house that's burning right now, but one is going to work more quickly than the other. And one has really no impact on anything at all, and one does.
Click to expand...
No, the Ds are banning only the sulfur tipped matches that the arsonists used, pretending that there is no other device to use to start another fire. (The speculation will simply move overseas.) The Rs are saying, "We have to tap the hydrant and use what we have, even if it costs." The D's are saying, "No pray more for rain."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top