If the DNC could just keep every liberal's mouth shut until November, and have everyone mindlessly repeat this slogan, teh L3ft would have supermajorities in both houses of Congress. Guaranteed.

Discuss.

5/30/2006 9:36:01 PM

BUT WILL THE GAYS GIT TA MARRY

CAUSE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO AFFECTS ME MORE THAN GAS PRICES

5/30/2006 9:47:13 PM

But when it doesn't come through, it'll back fire next time around.

5/30/2006 9:48:04 PM

yeah, althought the bullshit environmental regs the libs put on us are causing part of the problem.

5/30/2006 10:09:27 PM

yeah, thats exactly why gas is at 72 dollars a barrell

thanks for reminding me

5/30/2006 10:10:16 PM

were the dems (some of them) not calling for taxes on gas to get the price up to this level years ago?

5/30/2006 10:10:36 PM

^^Gas is at quite a bit more than 72 bucks a barrel.

But oil prices would be cheaper if not for the moratorium on all drilling on federal land and off the coast.

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 10:12 PM. Reason : 2]

5/30/2006 10:11:58 PM

neither party can do much, if anything, about gas prices, but if they can convince the public they can, they will do very, very well.

5/30/2006 10:15:10 PM

the other day when I saw the house had passed a measure to open the Alaskan wildlife refuge to drilling for the 800,000 time, and read an editorial piece about it. In the 90s that bill came around to raise minimum fuel economy standards by a good amount, instead of caring about citizens, our wallets, or the environment; the legislative branch chose to aid the auto industry and big oil by voting this down, and keeping the same fuel economy standards that are now over 30 years old. If they had passed this, based on current oil consumption today, the savings that would have been achieved by doing this would be more more barrels of oil per day than the alaskan refuge can give us. Great job on fucking over the people you are supposed to represent and protect their interests! Fuck you legislative branch.

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2006 10:17:02 PM

i'm pretty sure people are voting with their pocketbooks

but thanks for playing

5/30/2006 10:24:59 PM

god damnit, this is always a game show, and because Im only a soph in poli sci, I always get a 'thanks for playing'

5/30/2006 11:48:29 PM

well you did just suggest that it is the legislative branch that is at fault, not the american consumer

5/30/2006 11:50:26 PM

i wish we could just nuke the entire middle east

not like we need em anyway

then we take all their oil and live the good life

5/31/2006 6:59:35 AM

High gas prices are the Republican's fault because they are in bed with big oil, so they have no reason to change anything.

High gas prices are the Democrat's fault because they refuse to allow oil companies to dril for oil inside the skulls of baby seals and bunnies.

So we're fucked either way.

5/31/2006 7:48:33 AM

It would help to have a President that the Arabs didn't hate.

5/31/2006 7:59:38 AM

^Is there even one american citizen that could pull that off?

5/31/2006 8:42:15 AM

Well, if people feel that strongly about it, we could rig the free market with "minimum price" controls so that no one can sell a barrel of oil in America for less than $15 a barrel. This would be fairly easy to do, the U.S. congress primises to purchase all the oil for sale at $15 a barrel. Put it in the SPR, donate it to charity, dump it in the ocean, whatever. This would go a long way to stabilizing the peak-trough cycles of the market.

5/31/2006 8:59:46 AM

boo hoo, i am an american, i am entitled to everything like dirt cheap gas, who cares if the oil companies were losing money in the 80s and 90s, i am an american, i am entitled to everything

5/31/2006 11:19:40 AM

i sure do feel sorry for oil companies

5/31/2006 11:40:00 AM

why dont you look at the 80s and 90s when they were losing money? not convenient for you?

GOD DAMNED OIL COMPANIES AND THEM BEING IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY

WHAT THE FUCK WHY DONT THEY GIVE IT AWAY FOR A LOSS, I MEAN ITS NOT LIKE THEY'RE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY

5/31/2006 11:45:05 AM

YES, I AGREE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD GO POOR SO THE POOR POOR OIL COMPANIES CAN MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO SCRAPE BY. I MEAN, THEYRE REALLY SCRAPING BY HERE. WHO CARES ABOUT THE CONSUMER?

5/31/2006 11:53:55 AM

^^way to jump to conclusions. i was actually looking for 80s and 90s profits when i found that. i don't feel sorry for much of any business. especially ones that make that much money. what the hell are you talking about?

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ^^]

5/31/2006 11:54:56 AM

When did cheap gas become an inalienable right?

5/31/2006 11:56:38 AM

never? and?

5/31/2006 12:01:20 PM

and therefore why are you complaining about the 5th cheapest gas prices in the world

why dont you go dig for the oil and set up the systems to refine it and convert it into gasoline

maybe then you wont bitch about something thats cheaper than the same amount of fucking Deer Park spring water

5/31/2006 12:13:32 PM

maybe you should re-read my post.

5/31/2006 12:14:59 PM

maybe you should re-think your expectations

5/31/2006 12:21:09 PM

Well, there is some validity. If voting for a democrat in 2000 would have prevented the invasion of Iraq then it is quite probable that we would have lower gas prices today.

5/31/2006 12:38:35 PM

I could easily see it becoming a war: "Even lower gas prices. Vote Republican." I'm actually really curious about what both "sides" will do and say in the coming campaigns for election. I'm not thoughtful and informed enough to predict it.

I'm torn on the issue of gas prices. Part of me thinks we should tax the shit out of gas until people are forced to walk, use public transportation, make smarter car buying choices, and drive less. (Manipulating the market to control human behavior. LoneSnark would be proud! ) Meanwhile the tax money would be devoted to developing new forms of energy.

However, I also realize that the people who would be the most adversely affected by such a move are poor people (at least for a while). And I care about the poor people.

5/31/2006 12:54:39 PM

Quote :

"i sure do feel sorry for oil companies "

That's a bit of a statistical lie isn't it? So oil companies make on average a few points above ALL industries in profit. But how do they compare to other specific industries. Where on the curve do they fall because a few tenths of a percentage isn't much.

5/31/2006 12:55:06 PM

^Didn't I read that they pulled in record profits just this past year?

Where's the confusion?

5/31/2006 12:57:55 PM

Who the hell cares about the oil companies? I could truly care less if they are losing money or not. The entire economy depends upon petroleum so if the oil industry has to suffer, then so be it. Could I care less if they make any money. To combat the greed of the oil industry, I say we as citizens pool our monies together to create regional oil cooperatives. I donot know the particulars of the tax code, but aren't nonprofit organizations exempt from paying taxes or fall under some special tax bracket or something? Maybe we could lobby the federal government from exempting the cooperative's gasoline from gas taxes. That would do alot to help with high fuel prices. In fact, I think a great many industries would do well to be replaced by cooperatives such as energy companies and ISPs, to start off with.

5/31/2006 1:07:22 PM

Quote :

"To combat the greed of the oil industry, I say we as citizens pool our monies together to create regional oil cooperatives."

that's awful socialist of you, there.

this has been done w/ success with the heating oil industry in massachusetts, btw.

5/31/2006 1:15:16 PM

^Nothing socialist about it. the government would not be involved at all. noone would be FORCED to contribute funds, it would be completely voluntary. Of course, if you donot contribute funds then you will not be able to take part of any of the benefits. It will be like that story where the chicken bakes the pie, and noone will help her but then when it is finally made they all want to help eat it. I can't remember the name of that story though. I want to say Chicken Little, but I know thats not right.

5/31/2006 1:18:46 PM

^Here is a version http://www.progress.org/antgrass.htm

They made a Pixar movie out of it and everything.

5/31/2006 1:33:15 PM

Quote :

"^Didn't I read that they pulled in record profits just this past year? Where's the confusion?"

The confusion is your lack of understanding of economies of scale. Exxon's "record" gross profits is simply a function of it's size. The $36.1 billion in profits was on $371 in Revenues, so that means that Exxon spent about $335 billion to make that profit. That's less than a 10% margin, and much lower than a multitude of companies out there. So, the amount of profit doesn't mean much at all.

5/31/2006 1:57:04 PM

I HATE THAT I DONT GET FREE GAS FOR BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THE OIL COMPANIES ARE EASY TO BLAME

5/31/2006 1:58:28 PM

There is nothing wrong with a non-profit entity competing with profit enterprises. A free-market system accepts all kinds. Factories owned by unions are another common feature of a free system. My assertion is that given the incentives the profit enterprise will provide better products at lower prices.

5/31/2006 2:23:44 PM

Quote :

"maybe you should re-think your expectations"

all i ever said was that i don't feel sorry for the oil companies. stop misrepresenting what i've said simply because it's easier to argue against something i didn't say.

5/31/2006 2:27:18 PM

Quote :

"BobbyDigital: The confusion is your lack of understanding of economies of scale. Exxon's "record" gross profits is simply a function of it's size. The $36.1 billion in profits was on $371 in Revenues, so that means that Exxon spent about $335 billion to make that profit. That's less than a 10% margin, and much lower than a multitude of companies out there. So, the amount of profit doesn't mean much at all."

Yeah, I have no idea what you just said, and I don't think I'm ever going to take the time to learn that shit. So I'll take your word for it. I may go ahead and memorize it word-for-word so I can bust it out at a party when someone's talking about how much loot the oil companies are making. LOL

5/31/2006 2:38:47 PM

Quote :

" My assertion is that given the incentives the profit enterprise will provide better products at lower prices."

What kind of incentives? Because if it involves tax payer dollars or "special treatment" I'm TO-TALLY against it.

5/31/2006 5:14:03 PM

Quote :

"Nothing socialist about it. the government would not be involved at all. noone would be FORCED to contribute funds, it would be completely voluntary."

you seem to think all concepts of socialism involve big government.

it can also involve communal living, w/o the instrument of a state. citizens working together for economic justice. thats the way ive always viewed it, and its the way most people who favor forms of collectivization view it as well, typically.

if you think we're asking for government control, and not co-op control, youre sorely mistaken.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2006 5:41:10 PM

in the other thread he was on some other socialist shit about abolishing patents

funny his status name is "Anti-Socialist"

5/31/2006 5:46:40 PM

Quote :

"But how do they compare to other specific industries. Where on the curve do they fall because a few tenths of a percentage isn't much. "

Banking is where it's at. Banks consistently average ~15% margins, a level that the oil industry never made it to even with it's record profits last year.

5/31/2006 6:02:06 PM

^^Dude, you don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is government intervention and regulation of the economy. When you support government intervention into the economy to protect your ideas, you are promoting socialism. Once again, you tried and failed.

5/31/2006 6:04:51 PM

Quote :

"you seem to think all concepts of socialism involve big government."

Thats typically what results from it. What you seem to be describing here:

Quote :

"it can also involve communal living, w/o the instrument of a state. citizens working together for economic justice. thats the way ive always viewed it, and its the way most people who favor forms of collectivization view it as well, typically."

is some form of anarchy.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ..]

5/31/2006 6:08:56 PM

Quote :

"Who the hell cares about the oil companies? I could truly care less if they are losing money or not."

and

Quote :

"The entire economy depends upon petroleum"

Are entirely at odds with each other. If the oil industry loses money, people leave the oil industry, supply goes down. That means your costs go up. Not to mention that with less suppliers, the remaining have to buy more equiptment to keep up with new demand, which means more costs for you.

And that doesn't begin to even address the ramifications of the massive job losses.

Quote :

"To combat the greed of the oil industry, I say we as citizens pool our monies together to create regional oil cooperatives. I donot know the particulars of the tax code, but aren't nonprofit organizations exempt from paying taxes or fall under some special tax bracket or something? Maybe we could lobby the federal government from exempting the cooperative's gasoline from gas taxes."

Not a bad idea, but where are you going to get the money for the equipment? It's not like you can buy an oil refinery on ebay. And recall that just because you can produce oil that is legal for sale in NC doesn't mean it's legal for sale anywhere else.

Quote :

" Yeah, I have no idea what you just said, and I don't think I'm ever going to take the time to learn that shit. So I'll take your word for it. "

It's real simple. Exxon took in grand total last year $371 billion. They spent $335 Billion on expenses (wages, equipment, transportation, raw product, etc etc etc). Income (371) - Expenses (335) = Profit (36). So the oil companies make less than a 10% profit which is indeed much lower than many many other companies. It's not bad but it's not good either.

Essentialy record breaking is another statistical lie here.

Say you run a business, you buy Raw Good X and Raw Good Y and manufacture Finished Good Z. Now let's say your costs are $5 +$10 = $15. So $15 is the total cost to produce one unit of your Finished Good Z. Now let's say you decide you want to earn a 10% profit on your goods, so you sell the units at $16.60 (15 + 10%). Now say you sell 100 units in a year. Your profit for the year is $150. Now let's say your costs go up to say $10 for Raw Good X. So now your units cost $20 each to build. If you maintain your 10% profit, and still sell 100 units, by the end of the year, your profit is $200. OMG RECORD PROFITS.

It's also worth noticing that if you only sold 76 units (a nearly 25% drop in sales and not good business) you would still have made $152 in profit. OMG RECORD PROFITS.

5/31/2006 6:29:22 PM

Quote :

"Thats typically what results from it. What you seem to be describing here: is some form of anarchy."

collectivisation and economic justice is technically more socialist b/c it promotes such equality.

Quote :

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. "

this is probably the best definition of socialism. classical socialism does not involve the state, look up the french socialist communities of the 1800s. now, modern socialism, yes, it involves a state, simply b/c we have that idea of a necessary gov. hard wired into society now and many see them as the best means of assuring economic justice. preferably, the more democratic form of socialism is preferable, but so is democracy, and true democracy is just as elusive in many cases these days.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2006 8:04:36 PM

maybe they've finally gotten a clue?

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/451481.html

Quote :

"Democrats shifting to domestic focus Divided on Iraq, party sets agenda WASHINGTON - Unable to agree on a strategy for addressing the Iraq war, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on Friday tried to change the subject, retreating to the domestic front with a focus on pocketbook issues for the middle- and working-class voters. They pledged that if voters return their party to the majority in the November midterm elections, they will: * Raise the federal minimum wage, from $5.15 per hour to $7.25. * Cut in half the interest rates on student loans and make college tuition tax-deductible. * Instruct the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug costs with pharmaceutical companies. * Pass legislation that could discourage oil companies from raising prices. * Prevent privatization of Social Security. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with their respective whips, Rep. Steny Hoyer and Sen. Dick Durbin, made their pitch at a morning news conference at the Capitol, shortly before the House voted against a resolution opposing any timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But the war resolution, and the debate this week leading up to it, have exposed deep divisions with the Democratic Party over what military course to pursue in Iraq. At a liberal gathering at the start of the week, some war opponents booed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2008, when she said she opposes setting a specific date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's 2004 nominee who spoke at the same liberal conference, said a timetable for withdrawal was needed. To regain control of Congress, Democrats would need to gain six Senate seats and 15 House seats -- a feat analysts have said is not impossible but that would be difficult. When voters were asked in a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released this week which congressional candidate they planned to vote for in their own district this year, 33 percent said the Republican, 46 percent said the Democrat and 20 percent said they are unsure. But for Democrats, particularly those running in moderate districts, their party's image on the war could prove a liability regardless of their personal stances. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner."

6/17/2006 4:24:35 PM

Quote :

"* Cut in half the interest rates on student loans and make college tuition tax-deductible."

[Vote]

6/17/2006 4:29:04 PM