• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Geuss how much the economy has expanded!!

Econ101

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Econ101 said:
We had one of the best economic recoveries under Clinton because the government restrained spending. That only makes sense. If the govt. is sucking up less resources, there is more for private enterprise and the economy to use.

The only reason it looked like "one of the best economic recoveries" under Clinton, is because he sold off assets to fund his spending. Mainly, he sold out the military, which resulted in the security of our country being at stake. Those in charge of keeping the USA safe were handicapped with limited personnel, poor equipment, and sloppy leadership. Then when the chips were down, and a strong military was needed, it had to be started again from scratch.

Well, I wouldn't disagree with you there, Soap, Clinton did cut military spending. How is it he lead the way in Bosnia (Tito's former Yugoslavia) without much trouble in regards to the military? I wasn't happy about all the military spending cuts Clinton did regardless of this point and you are right about your point.

If we spent a fraction competently on anti-terrorism on what we spent on the military, we might have a chance at winning this "war" on terror. A competent president should be able do this job without going around the protections we have judiciously put in place in our country.

If there was ever a time where the pres. thought that he had to go around FISA courts because he believed the people he was after (with the counsel of the attny. general) were foreign agents or terrorists as Carter's executive order stated, I would even give him that authority too.

We need checks and balances in our government because you can not trust the power govt. is bestowed without checks and balances. Even when we are fighting terrorists. The fact that GW can't or will not do this concerns me.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
We need checks and balances in our government because you can not trust the power govt. is bestowed without checks and balances. Even when we are fighting terrorists. The fact that GW can't or will not do this concerns me.

Well, you agreed with me on my point so I'll agree with you on yours. Hey, we'd make good politicians or horses, either one. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. :wink:
 

Brad S

Well-known member
"The consensus among the republican senators was that they wanted to keep using oil until the world was running out of it. One of the staffers even told this to me. It doesn't tell much for their planning for an energy crisis but it does tell me they wanted the oil industry to be able to sell oil at higher prices. Halliburton went up hugely on this policy and we are all paying for it at the pump."


Absolutely a lie. Don't try to big town me with a staffer, I see your staffer and raise a Senator. I've known Senator Roberts most of my life, and he supports all sorts of alternative energy sources (and is a party leader). The Bush energy plan (the one the leftys filabustered) had money for wind. I heard this same lie when Reagan deregulated oil, and I'm simply tired of the lie.


"The cafe standards were never increased and the research on alternative fuels was snubbed until it got out of hand. Now those same technologies are getting a paltry amount of funding because of the crises and they say more is not needed, we need only time. This policy should have been instituted for ethanol enzymes some time ago."

Economists would suggest the price is a fairer determinant of fuel mileage standards - and guess what, the market is WORKING.



I come from and energy state and worked in the industry myself for some time. The self serving of this administration when it comes to the energy policy has embarassed even me. We are in an intractable war in the middle east and it isn't only money we are expending.

Irrelevant info


"I hope we are able to pull it off in Iraq but the deal has been raft with idiot decisions because politicians trumped the military in decision making."

No significant decision is above monday morning quarterbacking. Some say X some say anti X. In Iraq, an honest person sees a hell of alot more right than wrong.


"You can bash me all you want, but there is a mess out there and plain old patriotism isn't going to solve it."

spare me the race to victimhood - it makes you look like a lefty


"I haven't blocked any oil refinery expansions and haven't asked that they be blocked in any way. The refinery excuse is just that, an excuse. The industry could have asked for more refineries and in fact, they have increased the refinery capacity in the refineries that are open instead of just building new ones. My dad holds patents on some of the oil industry equipment so I know a little about it."

Refineries have to expand existing infrastructure because they can't site one anywhere. newest plans are to site one accross the border from SD Ca. Bush allowed refineries to expand without coming under new enviro regs and the leftys are still carping. Odd you'd attempt to big town me with irrelevant patent info. Sometime ask me who holds the patent on the most efficient well head for h/o wells. this fact means nothing to this discussion, and I refuse the pathetic big town plot.



"We have shifted some of our manufactoring over to China because it was cheaper and that has caused them to use more oil. We are still buying those products. China and India combined don't come close to the amount of oil we use daily. The U.S. uses more oil per day (over 20 million) than the next 5 countries put together with Inda being one of them at 2.4 million barrels/day and China at almost 6 million barrels. Neither China nor India are in the top 22 countries per capita of energy consumption. China only consumes only 2.586 million barrels more than they produce and who knows about India, but it has to be less given the numbers I just posted. The US uses 12.61 million more per day than it produces. Don't say it is China and India that is the problem."

The recent increase in oil is due to China and India increasing consumption. The US has long used this much oil - the change triggering the scarcity comes from the increase in the east.


"The deal on oil is that we are running out of the cheap oil and we have to start developing the more expensive oil. The people sitting in govt. on these committees have done almost nothing to get the infrastructure readey for these changes. They have just given "goodies" to the oil companies. Now with record prices they look the fools that they are. I am sorry to say they are republicans."

Can you be proud of what you write? Really? If you have any background in the oil patch, you know the Saudies closed marginal wells all accross the west with sub $10 oil while Klinton was oblivious. Senator Roberts, perhaps at my request, asked the boob to prop oil so as to keep marginal fields open - add to the reserve. Instead Klinton bled the reserve during the 2000 election so I say the problem was on base before Bush was pitching. Bush hasn't given $hit to oil, the free market has.



"It seems you can find any excuse that you can for this bunch of republicans but the fact is they have made the bed we must all sleep in and some of us aren't getting much sleep--including our servicemen in Iraq. I wish you would use a few more facts to show why you come up with your conclusions instead of just a bunch of political rhetoric. Political rhetoric doesn't solve the problem, it just excuses them."

Political Rhetoric - like this paragraph, your entire post.



"I have been down on the democrats when they need it but they aren't the party in charge that is blocking congressional oversight hearings for political arguments that don't amount to much like flag burning."

No they filibustered the energy bill. Without a super majority, this congress can do nothing except define wedge issues. I know where they learned this nasty trick. I can't condone it, but the populists by definition stand for getting a majority to tyranize a minority.



"It is time we held them accountable for doing the job we sent them there to do. It seems all you can do is make excuses for them.

As I said before, I am a RR republican. I just wish the republican leadership was instead of a bunch of crooks trying to scam our system."

Reagan dealt with the exact sort of lefty carping hoping against hope they could derail success. Too bad all those leftys that spit on troops and now are worried about troops, called Reagan a oil schill but now are RR republicans still think they are worth listening to.


"The real republicans need to stand up.

I guess your just not one of them."

Guess not. I heard the same crap when Reagan bombed Libia, escalated in Europe, deregulated iol, tried to deregulate banking. Gave to the rich by letting them keep their money.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Econ: "The consensus among the republican senators was that they wanted to keep using oil until the world was running out of it. One of the staffers even told this to me. It doesn't tell much for their planning for an energy crisis but it does tell me they wanted the oil industry to be able to sell oil at higher prices. Halliburton went up hugely on this policy and we are all paying for it at the pump."


Brad: Absolutely a lie. Don't try to big town me with a staffer, I see your staffer and raise a Senator. I've known Senator Roberts most of my life, and he supports all sorts of alternative energy sources (and is a party leader). The Bush energy plan (the one the leftys filabustered) had money for wind. I heard this same lie when Reagan deregulated oil, and I'm simply tired of the lie.

Econ: Where's the beef, brad? We have had a "lets use it up" policy for some time. The repubs. could have put more oil in the ground storage to take care of oil shocks from overseas but did not. In energy production, the technology and infrastructure to develop the next bit of oil takes time. We could have had a real energy policy that helped smooth that transition. We haven't really had an energy policy as you can now tell everytime you fill your car up. Your Senator is becoming known as "Patsy" Roberts because of his rubber stamping anything the pres. does. That is not fullfilling the role of the Congress. It is fullfilling the role of the party. Did Roberts take an oath to the Constitution or did he take an oath to the republican leadership?

Econ: "The cafe standards were never increased and the research on alternative fuels was snubbed until it got out of hand. Now those same technologies are getting a paltry amount of funding because of the crises and they say more is not needed, we need only time. This policy should have been instituted for ethanol enzymes some time ago."

Brad: Economists would suggest the price is a fairer determinant of fuel mileage standards - and guess what, the market is WORKING.

Econ: And since we have an energy dependent economy, the best thing is to make sure the energy is available or our foreign dependence is down. That takes investment, not handouts. It should have happened the first energy policy go round instead of the mickey mouse energy bill we got. Infrastructure changes take time. Governments can change policy so that the infrastructure changes are in place or about to be in place. If France could do this, why can't we? To heck with the anti nuclear crowd. France is full of environmentalists yet they get what, 70% of their electrical energy from nuclear?

In economics, the excess profits are always found in inelasticities. Inelasticities and elasticities of supply/demand are always a function of time. Government has a role with policy in making sure we have a smooth transistion in our economy into alternative fuel sources or reducing our dependence on energy. The energy bill was pretty short on that.

Econ: I come from and energy state and worked in the industry myself for some time. The self serving of this administration when it comes to the energy policy has embarassed even me. We are in an intractable war in the middle east and it isn't only money we are expending.

Brad: Irrelevant info

Econ: Then ignore it.

Econ: "I hope we are able to pull it off in Iraq but the deal has been raft with idiot decisions because politicians trumped the military in decision making."

Brad: No significant decision is above monday morning quarterbacking. Some say X some say anti X. In Iraq, an honest person sees a hell of alot more right than wrong.

Econ: Results are what matters sometimes, not rhetoric.

Econ: "You can bash me all you want, but there is a mess out there and plain old patriotism isn't going to solve it."

Brad: spare me the race to victimhood - it makes you look like a lefty

Econ: What victimhood? We are all victims of sorry policies.


Econ:"I haven't blocked any oil refinery expansions and haven't asked that they be blocked in any way. The refinery excuse is just that, an excuse. The industry could have asked for more refineries and in fact, they have increased the refinery capacity in the refineries that are open instead of just building new ones. My dad holds patents on some of the oil industry equipment so I know a little about it."

Brad: Refineries have to expand existing infrastructure because they can't site one anywhere. newest plans are to site one accross the border from SD Ca. Bush allowed refineries to expand without coming under new enviro regs and the leftys are still carping. Odd you'd attempt to big town me with irrelevant patent info. Sometime ask me who holds the patent on the most efficient well head for h/o wells. this fact means nothing to this discussion, and I refuse the pathetic big town plot.

Econ: The republicans have been able to do a lot of things over this administration that fringe "leftys" didn't want. You can't use them as an excuse here. The republicans have both houses of congress, the presidency and in a whole lot of cases the judiciary behind them. Not doing anything in these circumstances is no ones fault but their own.


Econ:"We have shifted some of our manufactoring over to China because it was cheaper and that has caused them to use more oil. We are still buying those products. China and India combined don't come close to the amount of oil we use daily. The U.S. uses more oil per day (over 20 million) than the next 5 countries put together with Inda being one of them at 2.4 million barrels/day and China at almost 6 million barrels. Neither China nor India are in the top 22 countries per capita of energy consumption. China only consumes only 2.586 million barrels more than they produce and who knows about India, but it has to be less given the numbers I just posted. The US uses 12.61 million more per day than it produces. Don't say it is China and India that is the problem."

Brad: The recent increase in oil is due to China and India increasing consumption. The US has long used this much oil - the change triggering the scarcity comes from the increase in the east.

Econ: Is this some big surprise? Maybe we need a little more intelligence in the current government. Anyone could see demand for oil is increasing and easy supplies are tight. It is called intelligence in energy policy.

Econ: "The deal on oil is that we are running out of the cheap oil and we have to start developing the more expensive oil. The people sitting in govt. on these committees have done almost nothing to get the infrastructure readey for these changes. They have just given "goodies" to the oil companies. Now with record prices they look the fools that they are. I am sorry to say they are republicans."

Brad:Can you be proud of what you write? Really? If you have any background in the oil patch, you know the Saudies closed marginal wells all accross the west with sub $10 oil while Klinton was oblivious. Senator Roberts, perhaps at my request, asked the boob to prop oil so as to keep marginal fields open - add to the reserve. Instead Klinton bled the reserve during the 2000 election so I say the problem was on base before Bush was pitching. Bush hasn't given $hit to oil, the free market has.

Econ: I totally agree with you on this one. Clinton did use the strategic reserves for politics of a good economy. It should not have happened. I would have much rather seen a reserve over and above the military strategic petroleum reserve used. It is like the deficit spending.

The republicans are doing some far worse things like not taking their share of oil field leases and putting it in the reserves, but instead giving it away to the oil companies. They have also allowed leases that do not take into effect the value of the oil coming out in many cases. They need a little lesson on writing leases (this is a facetious comment).



Econ:"It seems you can find any excuse that you can for this bunch of republicans but the fact is they have made the bed we must all sleep in and some of us aren't getting much sleep--including our servicemen in Iraq. I wish you would use a few more facts to show why you come up with your conclusions instead of just a bunch of political rhetoric. Political rhetoric doesn't solve the problem, it just excuses them."

Brad: Political Rhetoric - like this paragraph, your entire post.

Econ: Then stick with the issues/points.

Econ: "I have been down on the democrats when they need it but they aren't the party in charge that is blocking congressional oversight hearings for political arguments that don't amount to much like flag burning."

Brad: No they filibustered the energy bill. Without a super majority, this congress can do nothing except define wedge issues. I know where they learned this nasty trick. I can't condone it, but the populists by definition stand for getting a majority to tyranize a minority.

Econ: Populists don't tyranize a minority, they just want make sure a minority doesn't tyrannize them.


Econ:"It is time we held them accountable for doing the job we sent them there to do. It seems all you can do is make excuses for them.

As I said before, I am a RR republican. I just wish the republican leadership was instead of a bunch of crooks trying to scam our system."

Brad: Reagan dealt with the exact sort of lefty carping hoping against hope they could derail success. Too bad all those leftys that spit on troops and now are worried about troops, called Reagan a oil schill but now are RR republicans still think they are worth listening to.

Econ: I am not spitting on any troops and please don't try to put me in a group that erroneously defines my positions. Next are you going to call me a baby killer? How about a cow murderer or something else? If you can't keep out of the name calling it is just because you have lost your points.

"The real republicans need to stand up.

Brad: I guess your just not one of them."

Guess not. I heard the same crap when Reagan bombed Libia, escalated in Europe, deregulated iol, tried to deregulate banking. Gave to the rich by letting them keep their money.


Econ: Okay, so now I was against the bombing of Libya, deregulation, and am in favor of taking all the rich's money?

Come on, Brad, you haven't defined my positions, you have just ignored them and made up a bunch of crap to put me in some sort of clownish group to avoid the issues I raise. I wish you would ask me before assigning me into a group/positions I don't support.

If you keep this sort of thing up, you might want to join hands with SH in his wonderland. You could adapt all the little names he makes up too and wouldn't have to exert yourself so much.

Real issues are not being debated in this country due to the type of tactics you have brought up on this forum. No one is ever totally right on any policy decision, that is why we have a debate on the issues, so they can be hammered out. To demonize another side not based on the issues just leads to bad policy.

One of the things I admired about Clinton is that he could take republican ideas and debates and use them when he thought they were good.

The Bush administration just gets Karl Rove to ask what the corporate sponsers want.

I would love to see republicans steal the good ideas of the democrats, but first we have to have real debate on the issues of the day instead of the heavy handed republican control of Congress.
 

Latest posts

Top