southsider2k5 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:54 PM) ^^^ delusional. did you know that being a staunch conservative is ACTUALLY NOT centrist? Being centrist is being centrist. Y'all Republicans get that confused. I think you need to get your sarcasm meter worked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 listen guys, you haven't figured it out yet - but i'm just here so that there's at least ONE thing y'all agree on. and i guess i just really need to pull back on my tendency to use nuclear hyperbole because everyone always seems to take it extremely literally. mental note to self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:54 PM) did you know that being a staunch conservative is ACTUALLY NOT centrist? of course i knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 08:01 AM) listen guys, you haven't figured it out yet - but i'm just here so that there's at least ONE thing y'all agree on. and i guess i just really need to pull back on my tendency to use nuclear hyperbole because everyone always seems to take it extremely literally. mental note to self. Perhaps you haven't really been acquainted with mr g, but he does tend to be a wee bit sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Boy I can't wait for summer driving season, how about you? http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/...lar-is-falling/ Gasoline Prices Are Not Rising, the Dollar Is Falling + Comment now 455 0 7 0 1 Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social Security tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs. Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more. What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point. As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price. In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold. During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times. At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon. At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a “core CPI index” that excludes food and energy to guide monetary policy. From Big Ben’s point of view, rising gasoline prices are not a problem. For the rest of us, they are becoming a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Boy I can't wait for summer driving season, how about you? http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/...lar-is-falling/ Definitely sucks, but probably a good thing in the long run to prompt movement to renewable and domestic sources of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Boy, if we only began drilling our domestic oil ten years ago......or perhaps had a new pipeline to bring oil from Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) Boy, if we only began drilling our domestic oil ten years ago......or perhaps had a new pipeline to bring oil from Canada. You mean like having the highest level of domestic production in decades? Because we do. You mean like opening up tons of new fields, on and off shore, for drilling? Because both Bush and Obama have been doing that. The pipeline thing is indeed being turned into a political football, but keep in mind that is Canadian oil, not US oil, and much of it will be exported anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) You mean like having the highest level of domestic production in decades? Because we do. The other part of it is that we now have oil prices hovering around $100, which makes a lot of production profitable which wasn't profitable a decade ago at $30. So, I read "Boy if only we'd started drilling a decade ago" as "Boy, oil prices have been way too low for the last 15 years". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) You mean like having the highest level of domestic production in decades? Because we do. You mean like opening up tons of new fields, on and off shore, for drilling? Because both Bush and Obama have been doing that. The pipeline thing is indeed being turned into a political football, but keep in mind that is Canadian oil, not US oil, and much of it will be exported anyway. And Canada isn't running its existing pipelines to capacity currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) And Canada isn't running its existing pipelines to capacity currently. That doesn't mean building the infamous pipeline wouldn't increase global gasoline production capacity though, it would somewhat do so. Of course, that wouldn't mean a substantial decrease in price from this level, because production of the material that would travel through that pipeline would not be profitable if prices went down much from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) That doesn't mean building the infamous pipeline wouldn't increase global gasoline production capacity though, it would somewhat do so. Of course, that wouldn't mean a substantial decrease in price from this level, because production of the material that would travel through that pipeline would not be profitable if prices went down much from here. So would running their pipelines at capacity. But Canada isn't producing enough oil to do that currently, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will retire this year. Honestly, this might belong in the Democratic thread, because this retirement creates a huge opportunity for a Democratic Senate pickup. Senator Snowe probably would have cruised to reelection this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 04:40 PM) Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will retire this year. Honestly, this might belong in the Democratic thread, because this retirement creates a huge opportunity for a Democratic Senate pickup. Senator Snowe probably would have cruised to reelection this year. meh. she was same/worse than a Democrat IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 She was a moderate conservative who voted ® fairly reliably and held enough sway to tailor any compromise deals. Hopefully she'll be replaced by a Kucinich clone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 08:09 PM) She was a moderate conservative who voted ® fairly reliably and held enough sway to tailor any compromise deals. Hopefully she'll be replaced by a Kucinich clone. Pass me some of that dope. She voted with Obama 2/3's of the time over the last three years... and before that, she was basically irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 08:16 PM) Pass me some of that dope. She voted with Obama 2/3's of the time over the last three years... and before that, she was basically irrelevant. replace Snowe with a moderate dem (not a conservative blue dog) and tell me how a lot of the legislation her vote was key on looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 08:16 PM) Pass me some of that dope. She voted with Obama 2/3's of the time over the last three years... and before that, she was basically irrelevant. Far left wing = moderate. An actual moderate = right wing radical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 08:23 PM) Far left wing = moderate. An actual moderate = right wing radical. You are a master of sarcasm, it's why I love your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) Pass me some of that dope. She voted with Obama 2/3's of the time over the last three years... and before that, she was basically irrelevant. That's really rich. And not true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) That's really rich. And not true at all. The first part is. That's no joke. The voting record is there, Mr. Rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 09:49 PM) The first part is. That's no joke. The voting record is there, Mr. Rich. She voted to Disapprove the raising of the debt limit. Against having millionaires pay a surtax to extend the payroll tax. Repeal the Health Care Act Pass the Ryan Budget Against the Dream Act In this congress, she voted with the Republican leadership 74% of the time. I may not be the greatest with math, but I'm pretty sure that's not 2/3. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s000663/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm pretty sure she voted against the ACA and the motions for cloture as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 10:01 PM) I'm pretty sure she voted against the ACA and the motions for cloture as well. And thus...if the Dems take that seat, it's one more vote for the filibuster that would save that bill if the Repubs took all 3 branches in Nov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 09:02 PM) And thus...if the Dems take that seat, it's one more vote for the filibuster that would save that bill if the Repubs took all 3 branches in Nov. Right now the GOP is increasingly worried about holding the house, let alone taking the Senate and the Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts