Gas Prices, Liberals and the Truth

Interesting post there Redneck but you didn't provide any sources to backup any of you claims. Can you please do so? I would like to know more about your ideas.

Some of you need to read this. There are other sources for this news.

tomnelson.blogspot.com...

Roper

reply to post by LiquidMirage


What's the difference from reading a blog or news source or even a study about this thread. I feel The RedNeck is just as opinionated as the rest of the human society. He also makes sense. It really makes me mad when people want proof to reality and it must be on the internet somewhere. Google it. I hear it all the time about how the bible was written by man so it has to be faulty. Well, take a good look at the internet and search engines and it's the same thing. It's written and interpreted by man. Some people just come from reality and years of obtaining wisdom to speak their opinions. To me, that's worth more than the internet. Gas prices will benefit big business and bring us poor folks to our knees. Keep voting if you want to, but the only change will be when we take control of our country.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by jsobecky


It is not necessary to have control of Congress to stifle legislation, or even consideration of a proposal. Witness the way the Dems squashed any discussion of Social Security reform several years ago. That is just one example.

And thank all the Gods and a few extra that they did. Can you imagine, for a moment, what sort of mess we would be setting this country up for if we allowed "individuals" to invest their own money in the stock market?

Individuals who do not have the knowledge, or the insider information, to make the stock market work for them?

Spoken like a true liberal socialist. God forbid that we give people the power to determine how they should invest their own money. Perish the thought that they should have any control over their own lives.

No, that is the role of the government, you would say.

Sorry, that's not what our country was founded upon.

You dont need liberals to tell you what to do with YOUR money, but social security isnt YOUR money. It was paid into a program, a tax, in the event you or others should ever need it.

And just whose earnings did they tax, if it wasn't mine? Don't say it isn't my money - the gov't extorted it from me at the point of a gun.

Say I work for 40 years and die from a heart attack at age 60. What happens to the money I have put into SS? GONE!!

Bush would have given that money rights of survivorship; it could have been passed on to my children.

But the greedy libs would never let it out of their grubby, doughy, sweaty hands once they had it.

Edit to add;

Most conservatives wouldnt know a capitalist if they bit them on the butt.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

But I can smell a lib from a mile away.

reply to post by LiquidMirage
I can certainly provide some links, but as Solarskye pointed out, so can you. If you want me to do it, you'll have to wait. It's 10:00 PM here, and I leave out rolling again at 7:00 in the morning. So, you can either research it yourself (I'd recommend www.landlinenow.com... as a starting point, OOIDA's site) or wait until Friday evening or Saturday morning when I get back.

Either way, I'm sure you'll find the info you are looking for. The truth is out there, if you search for it.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by LiquidMirage
I can certainly provide some links, but as Solarskye pointed out, so can you. If you want me to do it, you'll have to wait. It's 10:00 PM here, and I leave out rolling again at 7:00 in the morning. So, you can either research it yourself (I'd recommend www.landlinenow.com... as a starting point, OOIDA's site) or wait until Friday evening or Saturday morning when I get back.

Either way, I'm sure you'll find the info you are looking for. The truth is out there, if you search for it.

TheRedneck

This response is not intended to shame you in any way so please don't get the wrong impression.

A college educated person knows that when claims are made in any dissertation proper sources must be cited! It not only lends credibility to your work but also helps your audience further evaluate your point of view. Furthermore, it really is not the responsibility of your readers to search for your sources. Source citation is the hallmark of any research writing. Now let it be understood that I'm not suggesting that your intent here was to write a research paper but you did make claims that you did not support with evidence.

Let it also be known that I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm only trying to make suggestions to help improve this already great little online community. Finally, if the purpose of this forum is to "deny ignorance" and we as members of ATS are supposed to add to the body of online knowledge, then citing proper sources would help validate your writing to visitors who are just here to check out the kooky conspiracy cite.

Originally posted by jsobecky

And just whose earnings did they tax, if it wasn't mine? Don't say it isn't my money - the gov't extorted it from me at the point of a gun.

Say I work for 40 years and die from a heart attack at age 60. What happens to the money I have put into SS? GONE!!

Here's another scenario for you. Say you work for 3 years and get run over by a truck. Your kids collect money even though you didnt pay into it for the 40 years in your proposal.

www.ssa.gov...

Parents under age 24 need as little as one and one-half years of work under Social Security for their children to receive Social Security benefits. The amount of work needed increases with age, but you would not need more than 10 years of work to be insured for all benefits.

Certain sorts of case builders love to throw in the "worst case scenario" to make it appear that their case is much stronger than it actually is. Appeal to emotion, and go directly for the drama. Ignore the fact that you could, and might, get waaay more out of SS than you put in. Ignore the fact that your tax dollars also pay for an entire infrastructure (roads, utilities) and services (police, etc.) that YOU use and need to use, just complain about the part that goes to help those horrible poor freeloaders that we hear so much about from the right. What percentage of your tax dollars actually goes to help "those people?" Do you know? What percentage of the budget will go to pay for the interest on the additional 3 trillion dollars our little hunt for the invisible weapons of mass destruction has cost us?

www.washingtonpost.com...

You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion.

By the way, you are sooooooo certain that Bush wants you to have control of "your" tax dollars, why dont you call him up and offer him some suggestions as to how to spend the portion that he is using for the war rather than for social security? Tell him you want the right to choose the guns and stuff yourself, to invest in the artillery you think will do the best job, and if you die, let him know you want the guns sent to your kids. Or, maybe ask for a refund of your portion, since they are taking longer than promised to deliver peace and democracy.

Let us know how that goes, will you?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by jsobecky

And just whose earnings did they tax, if it wasn't mine? Don't say it isn't my money - the gov't extorted it from me at the point of a gun.

Say I work for 40 years and die from a heart attack at age 60. What happens to the money I have put into SS? GONE!!

Here's another scenario for you. Say you work for 3 years and get run over by a truck. Your kids collect money even though you didnt pay into it for the 40 years in your proposal.

The same could be said about many private plans.

However, this thread is not about the merits and shortcomings of Social Security.

Any well-managed plan outdoes SS hands down.

But the problem with them is that you can't get your grubby little bureaucrat hands on them.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Certain sorts of case builders love to throw in the "worst case scenario" to make it appear that their case is much stronger than it actually is.

That's because the normal or average case is the same for all plans, good or bad. So why waste time discussing them? The real action happens not between the 20 yard lines, but between the 20 and the goal line.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Appeal to emotion, and go directly for the drama. Ignore the fact that you could, and might, get waaay more out of SS than you put in. Ignore the fact that your tax dollars also pay for an entire infrastructure (roads, utilities) and services (police, etc.) that YOU use and need to use, just complain about the part that goes to help those horrible poor freeloaders that we hear so much about from the right. What percentage of your tax dollars actually goes to help "those people?"

And certain liberals like to twist facts and deflect the issues when asked for backup for their claims.

Nobody is saying all taxes are evil. Nobody is complaining about freeloaders. EXCEPT YOU!

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

By the way, you are sooooooo certain that Bush wants you to have control of "your" tax dollars, why dont you call him up and offer him some suggestions as to how to spend the portion that he is using for the war rather than for social security? Tell him you want the right to choose the guns and stuff yourself, to invest in the artillery you think will do the best job, and if you die, let him know you want the guns sent to your kids. Or, maybe ask for a refund of your portion, since they are taking longer than promised to deliver peace and democracy.

Let us know how that goes, will you?

But that's not how I feel, so I wouldn't waste his time. I fully trust our military to handle those affairs.

To answer your comment, however, I have sent and received communications with President Bush more than a couple of times. He has always been sure to answer me. He has also sent me several notes of a personal and social nature. So I don't know what you are driving at.

reply to post by LiquidMirage
No offense taken. However, you can search no farther than this very site and see links I have already given to support every claim I have made. That post was nothing really new, only a compilation of previous responses which did contain supporting evidence.

I have also given you a starting point from which you can find out facts yourself. OOIDA (Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association) is one of the most active associations when it comes to fuel prices, because their members (truckers) feel the pinch much more than anyone else, save possibly the airlines.

Also, you must remember that this forum is, more or less, entertainment. The necessity to work for a living takes precedence to any 'requirements' or decorum that may or may not be applicable. In simpler words, I don't do this full-time like a pundit, so you might be required to search a bit for truth on your own.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by LiquidMirage
when claims are made in any dissertation proper sources must be cited!

No Drilling, No Vote
Speaker Pelosi won't let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor.

If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?

The Washington Post

How's that for proper cited proof? Most of the other blogs and references that others cite will point to similar evidence. The evidence is overwhelming. Liberals won't vote for new refineries, or new drilling. I don't know if they're trying to save the planet or just enjoy seeing everyone suffer with higher prices so they can look to the government for help. Liberals actually welcome the higher prices. Obama thinks it's great that oil prices are higher. He just thinks the price increases should be more gradual.

The Elephant in the Room: Democrats impede U.S. on energy

Democrats, including Barack Obama, support increasing taxes and regulatory costs (environmental) on energy producers and consumers (you), limiting exploration for new oil and natural-gas supplies, and mandating conservation...The only concern he has expressed recently is that prices have not gone up gradually

www.philly.com...

I could cite hundreds of credible news sources on this issue. The fact is that most liberals want to point at speculators, environmental concerns, big oil, and President Bush. They want to point their fingers at everyone but themselves, the real roadblock to lower energy prices.

These people are socialists in the same way that Karl Marx was a socialist. Just this last month house Democrats were discussing how the government should take control of the oil refineries. That's part of their great plan to control oil.

Democratic Oil Policy

• Block new refineries from being built
  
• Tax oil companies to death
  
• Limit oil drilling locations
  
• Block free trade of oil commodities on the market
  
• Seize control of oil companies
  
• Blame Bush
  

[edit on 31-7-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by jsobeckyThe same could be said about many private plans.

Really? My IRA and 401k do not give unearned monies to my family if I died young. Nor provide me with medical coverage. Please link to these private plans that do, I would like to look into them.

Originally posted by jsobecky
However, this thread is not about the merits and shortcomings of Social Security.

You introduced the issue while painting socialist liberals with a broad stroke.

Originally posted by jsobecky
But the problem with them is that you can't get your grubby little bureaucrat hands on them.

Not until you use the revolving door to get into the private sector.

www.opensecrets.org...

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's because the normal or average case is the same for all plans, good or bad. So why waste time discussing them? The real action happens not between the 20 yard lines, but between the 20 and the goal line.

If you have good outcomes on one end, and bad on the other, and its all the same in the middle, what is the problem? Doesnt it all come out in the wash?

Originally posted by jsobecky
And certain liberals like to twist facts and deflect the issues when asked for backup for their claims.

Nobody is saying all taxes are evil. Nobody is complaining about freeloaders. EXCEPT YOU!

Sorry, I was running through the "evil socialist liberal" talking points that the "corporate welfare conservatives" generally use, but I got ahead of you. Anytime you want backup for a claim by this liberal feel free to ask.

Originally posted by jsobecky
But that's not how I feel, so I wouldn't waste his time. I fully trust our military to handle those affairs.

To answer your comment, however, I have sent and received communications with President Bush more than a couple of times. He has always been sure to answer me. He has also sent me several notes of a personal and social nature.

So I don't know what you are driving at.

The point was SS is a tax. If you feel you should have control over how those taxes are managed, why do you not feel the same about how your other taxes are spent or expect that your family receive those taxes back when you die? If taxes you pay are your money, arent all taxes you pay your money? Or are the ones that are allocated to care for citizens when they are old or sick special somehow? Its just another tax, and it is a tax you are quite likely to get a direct benefit from. You are allowed to have private retirement plans in addition to SS. I do. I am willing to bet there are quite a few Enron employees that are quite grateful to have had the public system in place when their private retirement accounts were locked up and they were not allowed to withdraw their money and reinvest it when Enron was free falling.

This socialist liberal doesnt dislike Bush any more than most Democratic politicians. (Well maybe just a little, but thats just because of his annoying smirk) I personally think the whole system has been skewed to the point where all this evil republican, socialist liberal crap is meaningless drivel that we distract ourselves with (kinda like professional wrestling matches, the only one fired up over the rivalry is the audience) because no matter who wins, we the people lose. Some industries do better with a Democrat, others with a Republican, but industry wins no matter who wins.

The reason the economy is in such a wreck isnt because big business has been hindered by socialist liberals. It is because they have been given enough rope via de-regulation and crony-ism to hang us all with their mismanagement and greed. Short term profitability over long term stability and viability. Allowing specific corporations to become such behemoths that we have no choice but to bail them out when they tank under their own piss poor fiscal management in a corporate welfare scheme, or conversely, that they have few enough players in the industry that they can fix prices and rake in profits that supply and demand alone would not support. (Which was not Adam Smiths ideal of a free market, for those who use the term but havent read the man's book) Allowing certain industries to push their private desires to topple governments for access to resources onto the public dime. Allowing other industries to pollute and leave the mess to be cleaned up on the public dime.

I am actually NOT a tax and spend liberal, but I dont care that you call me one. I am someone who simply fundamentally disagrees with the "conservative" view on how much freedom (or support) industry should be allowed at the expense of the citizens of the country in which they make their profits. I disagree that the costs of doing business should be left off the financials and instead shifted to the taxpayer by not requiring businesses to be responsible for cleaning up their own messes, and securing their own resources.

I think that CEO's should not be confused with the owners of the corporations they have a fiduciary duty to represent honorably. And I think those same corporate officers should not be allowed to plunder the corporations with huge salaries and other perks which are not merited by their performance.

I am against "big government." I personally do not think we needed a new "homeland security" branch to eat up even more tax dollars, we had the information we needed to prevent 9-11, there was poor communication between agencies (best case scenario) or conspiracy to allow the event (worst case scenario) and adding yet another agency doesnt strike me as the way to solve that little problem.

I am against "big government spending." I oppose throwing away 3 trillion dollars on a war that, while long sought after, (All the way back to Bush the elder, including Clinton) was ultimately NOT necessary for our immediate security as a nation, and in fact has increased the danger to us. (Since they sold the idea based on making us safer, knowing damn well it had nothing to do with 9-11) No one would ever accuse him of being a nice guy, but Saddam was not a religious extremist, and posed us no physical threat. Could securing that area be in the US's best interests economically? Considering the valuable oil resources there? Sure. If we the people got to keep the oil as a public asset since we are the ones paying to go in and secure it. I think thats illegal though, to just go in an grab a countries resources openly, isnt it? One does need a pretense.....

In short, I am actually quite conservative. I just dont find most "conservatives" to be very conservative.

Originally posted by dbates
How's that for proper cited proof?

What I would like to see supported by evidence is the claim that offshore drilling would lower gas prices. What are the supposed reserves currently off limits by the off shore drilling restrictions? How closely does the increase in gas prices correlate to supply and demand? Why hasnt access to Iraq's HUGE oil reserves done anything to lower the price of gas, particularly since the same companies that would be benefiting from the off shore fields are going to be producing there?

www.nytimes.com...

Bloomberg News quoted the chief executive of Shell, Jeroen van der Veer, as saying at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid that the company expected to sign oil agreements with Iraq in “a matter of weeks.”

A major legal question hangs over the process: Iraq has yet to pass a law that divides oil revenue among all parts of the country.

Iraq has some of the largest oil reserves on earth, but they are largely untapped because the country has long lacked the resources to develop them. The companies will provide equipment and expertise to refurbish the country’s aging infrastructure.

Is there a claim being made that it will take less than the five years proposed to get the Iraq fields up to speed on production for the off shore reserves to have a significant impact on domestic gas prices?

Those initial short-term contracts, with Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, BP and Chevron, are still under negotiation, a person close to the talks said, and will probably be completed in the next month.

Next month in this case being August of 2008. Can the offshore drilling possibly give us increased supply more quickly than this? Or is there some claim being made that multinational corporations drilling in the US, or off the shore of the US, somehow is more likely to lower prices?

What will the long term environmental costs be for opening up the oil fields offshore, and who is going to pay them? If is the the public who will pay these costs, will those new costs exceed the benefit of the increase in supply?

Thanks in advance. I love to hear good supported argument because I feel it is the only way to really make a sound judgment about an issue. Too often these liberal vs conservative threads just degrade into name calling and the slinging of claims with little evidence provided to bolster them.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The point was SS is a tax.

Acutally it is supposed to be a pension. That's why there's an income cap on the amount you have to pay into it. Because if you paid more you wouldn't be able to get the money back out.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am against "big government spending." I oppose throwing away 3 trillion dollars on a war that... was ultimately NOT necessary for our immediate security as a nation

The U.S. is spending $700 billion every year to import oil. If you're just looking at this from a financial perspective, this is a much bigger waste of the dollar than any war in recent memory. That's money spent every year no matter who is president or if we're in Iraq or not. If we have the ability to reduce the amount of money we're sending to foreign nations, shouldn't we?

Originally posted by dbates
If we have the ability to reduce the amount of money we're sending to foreign nations, shouldn't we?

I agree that we should do something about our trade deficits. One of the problems as I see it is we are selling offshore drilling as a way to reduce gas prices, when it really seems highly unlikely that this will in any way reduce gas prices here in the US.

For instance, I have been doing some non-blog research, and this article makes a pretty good case for opening the off shore fields that has nothing to do with domestic gas prices. This site I lucked into presents the pros and cons non-politically, reasonably, not emotionally.

analysisonline.org...

Both opponents and supporters in the debate over lifting the offshore oil ban are arriving at a point of consensus that the action is unlikely to have an effect on near-term gasoline prices directly because leases would not be executed until 2012 and production probably would not begin until 2017.

The Energy Information Administration is a frequently cited source of this position, based on a recent analysis (click here).

The EIA concluded:

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

I can only speak for myself, but if given information rather than being lied to and manipulated by politicians trying to use my own short term self interests against me, I am much more likely to agree to something like this. There ARE compelling reasons to consider opening those fields. It has little to do with lowering gas prices in the immediate future, however.

Perhaps if politicians and the media stopped lying constantly, and actually provided information that we could trust, and that led to a logical conclusion, people would have less knee jerk reactions to policy proposals.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

The problem with that conclusion is that domestically produced oil does not need to be priced the same as international oil. Nothing prevents us from setting the price wherever we want. There would be no incentive or technical reason to set it higher than int'l oil, and every incentive to undercut int'l prices.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by jsobeckyThe same could be said about many private plans.

Really? My IRA and 401k do not give unearned monies to my family if I died young. Nor provide me with medical coverage. Please link to these private plans that do, I would like to look into them.

I'm referring to plans such as LTD policies. And of course, life insurance policies. SS is a combination of several benefits plans, so you can't just compare it with a 401K.

Example: an LTD policy I had paid me approx. $6K/month for 20 months. I had been contributing about 1.5 years. I cannot see SS giving an equal benefit, can you?

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's because the normal or average case is the same for all plans, good or bad. So why waste time discussing them? The real action happens not between the 20 yard lines, but between the 20 and the goal line.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

If you have good outcomes on one end, and bad on the other, and its all the same in the middle, what is the problem? Doesnt it all come out in the wash?

No. The end game is where the real differences are exposed. For instance, I cannot write a beneficiary for my SS benefits into my will. And if my children reach maturity, they cannot claim my contributions when I die.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The point was SS is a tax. If you feel you should have control over how those taxes are managed, why do you not feel the same about how your other taxes are spent or expect that your family receive those taxes back when you die?

Because it is a targeted tax, one with a specific purpose. I don't pay a "war tax". And my point is that I could make better investment choices on my own.

The other thing you are ignoring is that Bush never advocated making privatization of SS mandatory. If you wanted to stay with the old way, you could. And you would have only been able to invest a portion of your donations, not all of it, soyou'd still be covered under both plans.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
This socialist liberal doesnt dislike Bush any more than most Democratic politicians. (Well maybe just a little, but thats just because of his annoying smirk) I personally think the whole system has been skewed to the point where all this evil republican, socialist liberal crap is meaningless drivel that we distract ourselves with (kinda like professional wrestling matches, the only one fired up over the rivalry is the audience) because no matter who wins, we the people lose. Some industries do better with a Democrat, others with a Republican, but industry wins no matter who wins.

Agreed that playing partisan is a distraction. But there are definite core differences between conservative and liberal values which cannot be ignored.

And it's a good thing that industry wins. America runs on industry.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by jsobecky]

reply to post by dbates

I was with you until this:

The U.S. is spending $700 billion every year to import oil. If you're just looking at this from a financial perspective, this is a much bigger waste of the dollar than any war in recent memory.

Actually not exactly true. US oil companies are spending it. It is part of the total US imports, yes, but as compared to a tax, where there is no choice but to spend it (by anyone other than beaurocraps and politicians), we the people, the ones who use the oil, are spending it where we want to.

You can't compare private industry spending with tax dollar spending. The two operate entirely differently.

TheRedneck