Democrats intent on destroying middle class with $11 gas

[EconProf]

Glad to see that both sides are bringing data to the table. Dare I say that everyone is getting more civil here too. It is not often that a thread that devolves into mud-slinging can recover and become useful to us observers.
Here’s another piece of data. Many Americans have no idea how significant, area-wise, drilling for oil in ANWAR would really be. The fact is that the drilling would occupy an area the size of the Dallas airport, in a region the size of Virginia. That is like taking a postage stamp and putting it in the middle of your bedroom.
Add to that, with modern technology and safety requirements, oil spills and accidents are practically non-existent today.
Whether you are for or against drilling in ANWAR, let’s keep these facts in perspective.

[Anonymous]

It [medium of exchange, US dollar] is unarguably the largest contributor to the rise in the price of oil over the last 6 months.

I argue it.

Facts say otherwise.

Percentage rise of oil denominated in euros is significantly higher than the rise of euros (or decline in USD index trade weighted) versus US$.

Both last 6 months and last 2 years.

[Anonymous]

It [medium of exchange, US dollar] is unarguably the largest contributor to the rise in the price of oil over the last 6 months.

I argue it.

Facts say otherwise.

Percentage rise of oil denominated in euros is significantly higher than the rise of euros (or decline in USD index trade weighted) versus US$.

Both last 6 months and last 2 years.

[Anonymous]

It [medium of exchange, US dollar] is unarguably the largest contributor to the rise in the price of oil over the last 6 months.

I argue it.

Facts say otherwise.

Percentage rise of oil denominated in euros is significantly higher than the rise of euros (or decline in USD index trade weighted) versus US$.

Both last 6 months and last 2 years.

[Anonymous]

It [medium of exchange, US dollar] is unarguably the largest contributor to the rise in the price of oil over the last 6 months.

I argue it.

Facts say otherwise.

Percentage rise of oil denominated in euros is significantly higher than the rise of euros (or decline in USD index trade weighted) versus US$.

Both last 6 months and last 2 years.

[Anonymous]

It [medium of exchange, US dollar] is unarguably the largest contributor to the rise in the price of oil over the last 6 months.

I argue it.

Facts say otherwise.

Percentage rise of oil denominated in euros is significantly higher than the rise of euros (or decline in USD index trade weighted) versus US$.

Both last 6 months and last 2 years.

[barnaby33]

Fact, ANWR isn’t about oil. Its a proxy for all sorts of things, and oil isn’t really one of them. Ok its not really a fact, but if you think about it it sure has a lot of fact like qualities.

Even if we went forward with drilling in ANWR, its a small amount, too small for the controversy, of oil. It wouldn’t move the price of oil in the short term and it more than likely wouldn’t move it in the long term either. All it would really do is send a signal that we are willing to exploit anything at any cost, so long as its out of the way and no one really goes there.

It would send the message, that no people don’t need to change their ways and we won’t show restraint in our devouring of the world resources. In my fact like opinion, thats why people have fought so hard to keep out drilling.

[barnaby33]

Fact, ANWR isn’t about oil. Its a proxy for all sorts of things, and oil isn’t really one of them. Ok its not really a fact, but if you think about it it sure has a lot of fact like qualities.

Even if we went forward with drilling in ANWR, its a small amount, too small for the controversy, of oil. It wouldn’t move the price of oil in the short term and it more than likely wouldn’t move it in the long term either. All it would really do is send a signal that we are willing to exploit anything at any cost, so long as its out of the way and no one really goes there.

It would send the message, that no people don’t need to change their ways and we won’t show restraint in our devouring of the world resources. In my fact like opinion, thats why people have fought so hard to keep out drilling.

[barnaby33]

Fact, ANWR isn’t about oil. Its a proxy for all sorts of things, and oil isn’t really one of them. Ok its not really a fact, but if you think about it it sure has a lot of fact like qualities.

Even if we went forward with drilling in ANWR, its a small amount, too small for the controversy, of oil. It wouldn’t move the price of oil in the short term and it more than likely wouldn’t move it in the long term either. All it would really do is send a signal that we are willing to exploit anything at any cost, so long as its out of the way and no one really goes there.

It would send the message, that no people don’t need to change their ways and we won’t show restraint in our devouring of the world resources. In my fact like opinion, thats why people have fought so hard to keep out drilling.

[barnaby33]

Fact, ANWR isn’t about oil. Its a proxy for all sorts of things, and oil isn’t really one of them. Ok its not really a fact, but if you think about it it sure has a lot of fact like qualities.

Even if we went forward with drilling in ANWR, its a small amount, too small for the controversy, of oil. It wouldn’t move the price of oil in the short term and it more than likely wouldn’t move it in the long term either. All it would really do is send a signal that we are willing to exploit anything at any cost, so long as its out of the way and no one really goes there.

It would send the message, that no people don’t need to change their ways and we won’t show restraint in our devouring of the world resources. In my fact like opinion, thats why people have fought so hard to keep out drilling.

[barnaby33]

Fact, ANWR isn’t about oil. Its a proxy for all sorts of things, and oil isn’t really one of them. Ok its not really a fact, but if you think about it it sure has a lot of fact like qualities.

Even if we went forward with drilling in ANWR, its a small amount, too small for the controversy, of oil. It wouldn’t move the price of oil in the short term and it more than likely wouldn’t move it in the long term either. All it would really do is send a signal that we are willing to exploit anything at any cost, so long as its out of the way and no one really goes there.

It would send the message, that no people don’t need to change their ways and we won’t show restraint in our devouring of the world resources. In my fact like opinion, thats why people have fought so hard to keep out drilling.

[sobmaz]

I get a kick of how stupid people really are.

Go back to the archives of the Senate and House and see who introduced bills that would lead to less reliance on petroleum. Notice who squashed that legislation.

The latest proof is when Bush came in he immediately did away with the CAFE standards (at the automakers bidding). If the Democratic CAFE standards had been imposed, Detroit would already have the fleets of higher economy autos. The U.S. would be importing a minimum of 1 million barrels per day less.

Instead Republicans got their way. No mileage standards, big, fat SUVs that suck up the gas and Detroit in shambles. AND, now, they are successful and blaming Democrats for oil prices!.

I don’t know about you, but I sleep better at night knowing this nation has a huge STRATIGIC RESERVE of petroleum to cushion our transition away from that energy source.

Bush doesn’t think 5.00 gasoline is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve that was created…..The Demos don’t think 5.00 gas is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve nature gave us. What’s the difference? Neither will solve our problem, only alternative energies will.

[sobmaz]

I get a kick of how stupid people really are.

Go back to the archives of the Senate and House and see who introduced bills that would lead to less reliance on petroleum. Notice who squashed that legislation.

The latest proof is when Bush came in he immediately did away with the CAFE standards (at the automakers bidding). If the Democratic CAFE standards had been imposed, Detroit would already have the fleets of higher economy autos. The U.S. would be importing a minimum of 1 million barrels per day less.

Instead Republicans got their way. No mileage standards, big, fat SUVs that suck up the gas and Detroit in shambles. AND, now, they are successful and blaming Democrats for oil prices!.

I don’t know about you, but I sleep better at night knowing this nation has a huge STRATIGIC RESERVE of petroleum to cushion our transition away from that energy source.

Bush doesn’t think 5.00 gasoline is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve that was created…..The Demos don’t think 5.00 gas is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve nature gave us. What’s the difference? Neither will solve our problem, only alternative energies will.

[sobmaz]

I get a kick of how stupid people really are.

Go back to the archives of the Senate and House and see who introduced bills that would lead to less reliance on petroleum. Notice who squashed that legislation.

The latest proof is when Bush came in he immediately did away with the CAFE standards (at the automakers bidding). If the Democratic CAFE standards had been imposed, Detroit would already have the fleets of higher economy autos. The U.S. would be importing a minimum of 1 million barrels per day less.

Instead Republicans got their way. No mileage standards, big, fat SUVs that suck up the gas and Detroit in shambles. AND, now, they are successful and blaming Democrats for oil prices!.

I don’t know about you, but I sleep better at night knowing this nation has a huge STRATIGIC RESERVE of petroleum to cushion our transition away from that energy source.

Bush doesn’t think 5.00 gasoline is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve that was created…..The Demos don’t think 5.00 gas is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve nature gave us. What’s the difference? Neither will solve our problem, only alternative energies will.

[sobmaz]

I get a kick of how stupid people really are.

Go back to the archives of the Senate and House and see who introduced bills that would lead to less reliance on petroleum. Notice who squashed that legislation.

The latest proof is when Bush came in he immediately did away with the CAFE standards (at the automakers bidding). If the Democratic CAFE standards had been imposed, Detroit would already have the fleets of higher economy autos. The U.S. would be importing a minimum of 1 million barrels per day less.

Instead Republicans got their way. No mileage standards, big, fat SUVs that suck up the gas and Detroit in shambles. AND, now, they are successful and blaming Democrats for oil prices!.

I don’t know about you, but I sleep better at night knowing this nation has a huge STRATIGIC RESERVE of petroleum to cushion our transition away from that energy source.

Bush doesn’t think 5.00 gasoline is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve that was created…..The Demos don’t think 5.00 gas is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve nature gave us. What’s the difference? Neither will solve our problem, only alternative energies will.

[Author]

Posts