House Dems Turn Out the Lights On the GOP 1143
Politico is reporting that while GOP leaders opposed a motion to adjourn the House, the Democrats have closed up shop and even turned out the lights. While the lights and microphones have since been turned back on, it makes for an amusing mental image and possibly even a few dark YouTube video spoofs. "Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O'Connor. 'This is the people's House,' Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. 'This is not Pelosi's politiburo.' Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers."
The motion to adjourn passed... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm missing the story other than Boehner and gang are trying to make a fuss about nothing.
The motion to adjourn passed, so the Speaker banged the gavel and they went home. Am I supposed to think that the Democrats are somehow disregarding the rules of the House and refusing to let Republicans speak?
A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt (Score:3, Insightful)
What actually happened, of course, was that the House adjourned for its August recess. As scheduled. Just like it does every year. Presumably it was scheduled months in advance. Everyone knew it.
Except this time the minority party refused to, you know, leave. Though the government is not in session, the Republicans insist on hanging around anyway.
Why? Not to get any work done. They're sticking around in the hopes of getting some press simply for being stupid.
It may work. If the Democrats did this, the media would be happy to portray them as whiny little losers who didn't know when to go home. (Which would basically be accurate.)
But since it's Republicans doing it, the media -- including Slashdot, in this case -- will find amusement in what the Dems "did" to the GOP. Politico, which is generally an organ of the Republican Party, is true to form by calling Democrats "furious" and "complaing" [sic]. Slashdot says the Dems "turned out the lights on" them and giggles that the Democrats left even though "GOP leaders opposed a motion to adjourn." (It doesn't matter what "GOP leaders" wanted. The motion to adjourn passed. So the House adjourned. Learn 2 parliamentary procedure, noobs.)
Calling the House a "politburo" (meaning "the policymaking committee of a Communist party") because it adjourned on schedule is -- and here I have to agree with the Democrat who was quoted -- moronic.
And the issue the GOP is demagoguing is gasoline prices and offshore drilling. This pushes today's stunt from ridiculous to pathetic. The Department of Energy's official projection [nytimes.com] is that if offshore drilling were legalized immediately, "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant" -- even in 2030.
And that's an inflated stat, since its numbers include hypothetical drilling off the coast of California. The GOP is pushing to allow states to allow OCS drilling if they choose -- "states' rights," as the slogan goes. And California's politicians, including its Republican governor, have made it clear the state will not allow more drilling off its coast. So the actual benefit of the current GOP proposal would be about 2/3 of the DoE's hypothetical. In 2030 :)
It's hard to believe that the Republicans would hang around a vacated government building after everyone's gone home, and yell into a bullhorn about how Congress needs to debate lower gas prices right now -- not in September! -- when Bush's own Department of Energy admits any changes would have zero effect on oil prices for 9 years and "insignificant" effect after that.
The GOP's twitter feed [twitter.com] indicates their dogma du jour is: "drill here drill now to get us through the next 10 to 15 years." Again, the DoE's projections indicate zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years, and "insignificant" effect after that.
It's unbelievable how pathetic our national politics has become. This embarrassment is why we need the grownups back in charge. And every media outlet that fails to make clear why the stunt is pathetic is part of the problem. Sadly, I include Slashdot in this.
Republican grandstanding (Score:4, Insightful)
Yawn...."Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess."
What a load. Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it (assuming that prices actually go down) More corporate welfare from the Repubs.
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
That was their excuse ten years ago. It would take ten years to see any benefit, so why bother?
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're admitting, then, that we should have started drilling in ANWR in 2002?
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I guess the vote could wait a few weeks without the economy imploding yes?
It has already been many years (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the offshore drilling is allowed it will be many years before we see any benefit from it...
And you guys have been saying that for many years. That's why we couldn't fix the problem back then too. Now, many years later, it is not fixed.
More corporate welfare from the Repubs.
Translation: "Americans can't have cheaper gas because some corporation might make some money. It's worth it to have poor people suffer just so you can stick it to those nasty corporations."
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Save that it wasn't the liberals that were doing this silly stunt...it's the ones that claim to be conservatives. The House adjourned for vacation. The Republican's chose to act like little kids and try to press for oil drilling that won't make a drop in the sea's worth of real change and call it an "Energy Policy".
Shameful, really.
Yesterday: $11b in profits for Exxon, today...? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yesterday Exxon-Mobil announced they made $11 billion dollars in profit last quarter, the largest profit of any company in American history. Today, Republicans are making a huge fuss about giving drilling rights, above and beyond the used and unused leases the oil companies currently have.
There's a connection here, but I'm not smart enough to see it.
Oh wait, maybe it's that the GOP is in the pockets of the oil companies, and know that if they make a concerted enough effort that the talk-radio listening drones will join in the cacophony.
Morons. This fake sanctimony just makes them look weak.
Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I expected better from /. though.
Oh well...
you must be new here.
how about no politics crap in slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
all it is is flames in both directions. we have more important things to discuss. like, for instance, goatse.cx
Protest (Score:3, Insightful)
This may have been a "stunt", but it's politics. You act like this stuff never happens. The whole thing was done to protest the Democrats' plan of adjourning the Congress so that there would be no more calls on the House floor to open up oil expoloration, something that, despite your opinion on the matter, the public overwhelmingly supports. Pelosi's idea was, no session, no cameras, no problem. She figures the issue will hurt Democrats less if no one actually speaking about it in Congress. And be honest, it's smart politics, and if the positions were reversed, and it were Democrats running this protest, you'd be screaming like a banshee about how fascist the GOP was for "cutting off debate".
The motion to adjourn passed? Of course it did. Right along party lines. The GOP wants to keep this issue in the press, because it's popular and it helps them. The Democrats are hoping this issue goes away, because it hurts them. What's the approval rating of Congress now? 9 percent?
By the way, "Dogma Du Jour". Good, lets have more, because the US could be an energy exporter if it wanted to be. Hell yes, drill more. Use every option we have. You want to get political? Fine. The Democrats "Dogma Du Jour" is you people are just going to have to do with less and pay more for it. I'll take our position over yours all day long.
I think liberal Slashdotters protest too much...
Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt (Score:2, Insightful)
Your "facts" don't matter. It's much more comforting to believe that drilling like a madman will reduce gas prices to $1.25/gal. We'll believe that instead.
The votes of grownups are diluted by ignorants who don't understand the first thing of global markets or oil drilling.
It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil prices are high because speculators think future supply will be low. If we drill, speculators may think future supply will be higher. This will lower current prices even though the oil won't be immediately available.
Dems are doing their jobs??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are assuming that everyone is going to go hang out at their own 1000 acre ranch.
Congress adjourns BECAUSE we are a representative democracy. Most congressmen go to their home districts and then spend all their time meeting with the people (YOU) to better understand what you want and represent you better.
This is congress doing their job.
What really tells is how active Congress is when they are in session. This Congress has been very active even though all the important legislation has been vetoed. Personally I am looking forward to meeting with my representative (Jim Marshal D-Ga) without having to fly to Washington.
Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans are acting childish. It reminds me of what I would see in highschool when the teachers would strike -- but the Democrats are running away from the problems that need to be solved. It's their job, and it's not done yet, so they deserve no recess in August, no matter how long they've planned it. This isn't a retail job at Wal-mart where the company will be ok if one worker leaves for 6 weeks.
But after everything is said and done, after seeing at least 4 major laws passed that grossly violate the constitution in the last 2 weeks, it's almost a reprieve to see them out for a few weeks. The only reason I'm sure they don't use the constitution as toilet paper is because some of them would actually read if that were the case.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It has already been many years (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best.
The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is both sides acting childish.
Democrats for taking their ball and going home. Republicans staying around whining like a 4 year old.
Those people who think one side or the other is acting properly while the other side isn't, is just ... well stupid.
They get paid for working full time, I suggest that they work like the rest of us "regular" people and take only two weeks per year vacation.
I know, silly me to expect the public servants to act like servants rather than bosses.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:2, Insightful)
Speculators aren't idiots and know exactly how little oil is in the US reserves. Which still doesn't explain the sneaky and underhanded antics of the conservatives. Having the lights turned out on them is exactly what they deserve, they shouldn't try to sneak in and enact legislation while everyone is on vacation.
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but researching new technologies has a chance of providing a long term solution. Drilling on the other hand has no chance of solving our energy problems.
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil production comes out, generally speaking in a bell curve. We'd still be on the left-hand side of that curve.
As Jamie pointed out [slashdot.org], the DOE has already said that any drilling would have a negligible effect on prices. Ceasing the sabre rattling in Iran would reduce oil prices quite a bit more than new drilling.
We're talking about adding a few drops of water to the ocean here. Oil is a global market and therefore goes to whomever is the highest bidder. Oil prices are going to continue to rise until we can figure out more efficient ways of using it. Of course, most Americans believe having cheap, personal transportation is a birthright, so it's going to be a lot harder to wean us off the idea that a 30-mile commute with no one else in the vehicle is standard.
on topic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Were the lights turned off by robot running linux?
Seriously editors, the best way to compete with Digg is not to compete with Digg. People will come.
Re:The motion to adjourn passed... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a rationale to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Elected representatives are supposed to remain in touch with the districts they represent. Having them remain in Washington, D.C. 11 and 1/2 months a year makes it difficult to do that.
Not, of course, that every representative uses his or her vacation time to keep in touch with his or her constituents, mind you. But that's part of the point, at least.
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
They already have millions of leased acres ready for drilling, why don't they just utilize those resources instead of gaining leases on more land that they wont be able to drill for another 5-15 years?
Oh that's right, Exxon-Mobile just turned an $11 BILLION dollar profit in the last quarter.
The off shore drilling package from the GOP is nothing more than pandering to the uninformed masses while ensuring campaign financing from companies of the most profitable industry in the history of the United States.
-Rick
Re:Yesterday: $11b in profits for Exxon, today...? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are an idiot. Gross profit means nothing. Their profit margin was about 8%. There are many more companies with a higher profit margin.
Crude Oil is an appreciating asset (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of crude oil has gone up considerably in the last 10 years. All the oil that was not pumped out of the ground under the U.S. and burned in the last decade is now much more valuable, and if you can avoid pumping and burning it for another 10 years then it will be still more valuable.
Given that Americans are handing huge bills to future generations, including a $10 trillion debt and another $80 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security), it is nice that some valuable resources can be passed on too. It is unfortunate that many Americans seem to think "If we don't drill and burn this crude oil now, *I* won't benefit from it! Drill Drill Drill, Burn Burn Burn! It's MY crude oil and I want to BURN it NOW!"
May I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the flying fuck are any of our "concerned" leaders taking a fucking vacation when according to so many of them our country is on the road to hell? Why aren't they working their assess off to make the country, so many of them "love", a better place?
Could it be that few if any of them actually give a fuck about us? Could it be that maybe they do this for themselves, and themselves alone, regardless of their political alignment.
Wake up folks, they don't care, they don't love you, they don't want to make the world better for you, or anyone else. They want to mold the world to be the way they see it.
Bush, McCain, Clinton, Pelosi, Obama, Cheney. It goes for all of them. There may be a few good folks left up there, but they are completely outnumbered.
You reap what you sow (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans in Congress had ~160 hours of hearings into allegations that the Clinton administration vandalized the White House before turning it over to Bush. (They failed to find a single instance of vandalism) They spent ~12 hours investigating the 9/11 attacks. That's why they are now in the minority - because they cannot govern worth a damn. Today's stunt - ignoring the rules of procedure to grandstand for environmentally damaging policies that won't make a difference in gas prices for decades if ever - shows they have not learned their lesson.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the House moved to Adjourn at the scheduled time- because what was being proposed wasn't actually pressing business (Like a WAR...). That's not taking their ball and going home- that's just doing what ends up happening each and every year since the beginnings of the current form of Government we have in the US. It's far from the same thing as the antics going on right now from the Republicans.
Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt (Score:2, Insightful)
Precisely what do you believe that the House of Representatives can do productively in five weeks to have any effect on the economy? Raise GDP by fiat? Increase productivity? Reduce inflation? They don't get to ride their magic candy-flavored flying unicorns until next January, and even then their super secret magic powers don't control complex economic behaviors, not even the wizardly powers of the Chicago representatives.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Speculators aren't idiots and know exactly how little oil is in the US reserves. Which still doesn't explain the sneaky and underhanded antics of the conservatives. Having the lights turned out on them is exactly what they deserve, they shouldn't try to sneak in and enact legislation while everyone is on vacation.
Maybe those people that I elect and pay shouldn't be on vacation while I'm looking for second job so I can pay for the gas to get to my first job!
Re:The motion to adjourn passed... (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of the stupid shit we go through in the US, are because of things that were thought to be understood by all and were thus left unspecified.So while those might be understood by some to be the rules (and really it is the rules that the authoring of the book was an attempt to codify, that are understood to be the rules), since they are not officially the rule they will be ignored whenever convenient.
But I do kind of hope that there is a reason for an emergency (but not a real life threatening one) and that the republicans get to complain then, after all the motion to adjourn for 5 weeks passed with a majority and who is nancy pelosi to contradict a motion that passed the house.
Has It Occurred to you? (Score:3, Insightful)
any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant
zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years
It's ths kind of thinking, or lack of it, that got us into this problem in the first place. You folks can't think 6 inches in front of your dicks. IF it does take that long to get production started, then GET THE FUCK STARTED ON IT!
And despite the drugs you are on, if the situation was reversed, then ABCCBSNBCMSNBCCNN would have folks up there covering it like flys on horse crap.
Hateful Democrats... (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of real people are in a world of hurt with these high gas prices. America simply announcing there will be plenty of oil by its commitment to drill will drop prices over night. But Pelosi's summer vacation and politics trump the less advantaged. Par for the course for Democrats.
Headline: Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the world: Women and minorities hardest hit.
Re:Dems are doing their jobs??? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Most congressmen go to their home districts and then spend all their time raising money to better get themselves reelected and keep accumulating power."
Fixed that for ya'
Selective outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics is mostly theater, faux outrage, and pandering. Why would a stunt like this cause the average Slashdot reader's blood to boil?
Because it's the GOP pulling the stunt. I don't recall much scoffing at Dennis Kucinich's attempt to hold impeachment hearings on President Bush. No, I guess that was all about a righteous avenger shining a spotlight on The Greatest Evil Our Planet Has Ever Known.
These kinds of stunts get the media's attention and some coverage for issues one party or the other thinks is important. The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.
Re:Republican grandstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you REALLY think that those "evil" oil companies just want to be mean to everyone and run rampant and pillage? They're out to make the most cost-effective dollar by drilling for oil.
Think about it this way - they AREN'T drilling on those leases because they WON'T make any money doing it....and I would trust their word on how much money they make off of oil than yours, unless you're some sort of petro-economic engineering expert.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You think *talk* of drilling brought oil down $20? Really? You mean it wasn't the fact that the economy is falling like a rock, unemployment is up and that for the first time in memory americans actually drove less?
It was talk about drilling?
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, and I'd hope you agree, completely irrational.
If you were an oil trader and knew that if we started drilling today and that oil wouldn't get used for another 10 years, why in God's name would that affect your bidding on contracts for September delivery?
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can spout whatever ill informed opinions you like, but look at the facts. We have a total of 21 billion barrels of oil in reserve. [wikipedia.org] We used 20 million barrels a day in 2004 according to the CIA world fact-book. That amounts to a little over three years of reserves at 2004 usage levels. That simply won't lower the price of gas, all it will do is put more money in the oil companies' pockets when they are already making record profits.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, unfortunately, these people are REPRESENTING a certain portion of our population. Its not mature, no, but this is the behavior certain groups of people have chosen to reward.
Its simply a reflection of the place this country has become. Somehow, that when everything doesnt go exactly the way you want it, the only available option is to complain and point at the other guy for being 'at fault'.
Take a situation for example, of a company who is involved in quite a few small claims, and arbitration cases. A third party then publishes the information that is made available on the local county court website regarding this(PUBLIC INFO). What does the company do? Caton Commercial [willcounty...tcourt.com] decided to send a Cease and Desist [demystify.info] letter claiming that publishing this information was libel. And now what happens? When typing in their company name 'Caton Commercial' into google, the second entry is for the link to the courthouse webiste listing all the case schedules.
The point being, that sometimes drawing attention to yourself in such extremely overboard displays, sometimes has whats best known as 'unintended consequences'. Granted, logically thinking through such a response would have prevented this company, or the republicans, from looking like children. But thats rarely the case when a damaged ego is looking for retribution.
Re:Yesterday: $11b in profits for Exxon, today...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Argue about NET PROFIT.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Speculators aren't idiots".
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha
Re:Hateful Democrats... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Instead of drilling domestically, where we know we can do it cleanly and for little political cost, we import oil from places like Mexico and Nigeria where environmental regulations are lax, and places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where the governments are actively working against our interests in the world. This makes no sense and I don't see how any thinking person can think this policy - Nancy Pelosi's policy - is helping to save the planet.
Re:The motion to adjourn passed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't the elephants lock the donkeys out at one point a few years ago, before the donkeys amassed new forces and re-asserted dominion over the barn?
Maybe those donkeys do keep the elephants from talking more often, but it seems that this was in direct reaction to the last time the elephants did some crazy shit with their power.
Of course, the whole fucking thing is ludicrous. Only a fool would think that the donkeys will be the majority forever, and they're going to get it right back, again, and probably more in a more embarassing and infuriating manner. And then it'll switch again, and so on and so forth.
Tangential: Why are there never any polls about whether we citizens feel that our system will ever be fixed - or at least made better?
Unwashed Masses? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The point is that more drilling isn't a fix. More drilling in the US will provide a relatively small amount of oil which will delay our energy problems for months, maybe a few years at best."
More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices.
"The Republicans are putting on a show today because it looks good to the unwashed masses, but getting their drilling won't solve our energy problems."
I notice that, to liberals, when the issue is liberal and popular with Americans, then they're a great and wise people, righteous in their anger at the Republicans. But when the issue is conservative and supported by Americans, they're stupid unwashed masses.
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. We've got plenty of ways to do it... more drilling, more shale, more coal to gasoline, more nuclear... liberals just don't like those options. What you're really mad about is that we won't do it your way... with nothing but biofuels and electric cars.
Nancy "Marx" Pelosi (Score:4, Insightful)
First and foremost, unless the issue involves human rights: such as legalizing rape or murder, the house has a right to vote on it. The people of this country have a right to vote on subjects- that's what makes a democratic republic.
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling. It's a simple supply and demand problem. The supply is scarce so the cost rises. This allows oil speculators to raise the price even higher. Oil industry experts believe that oil could reach the market in 3 years; don't believe the 7-15 year nonsense. See 1980s oil glut [wikipedia.org] for how supply and demand effect oil prices.
Third, I truly believe moving away from oil as a fuel source is the ultimate solution. This will not happen today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. The correct action today is to unburden the lower class and the economy with the cost of gasoline by increasing oil supply.
Fourth, anyone who believes that Exxon makes excessive profits is a moron. 11.68 billion on 138.07 billion of revenue- 8.45% profit. That's considered an average profit in the business world.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:5, Insightful)
So the energy and oil crisis isn't pressing? Then let the Democrats explicitly say so, and give the (R) campaign fodder for the Nov elections.
I'm not defending the (R) either. They do the same sort of crap all the time too. I'm sick of both parties.
Vote Third Party in November.
Re:"wait a few weeks" (Score:3, Insightful)
Which just shows what this is about — not solutions, not governance, not RESCUING THE ECONOMY THEY DESTROYED...politics.
Politics is how you get things done. Politics is nothing but action from a set of ideas. Everytime the Democrats "get things done", they're engaging in politics too. As for the economy "they destroyed"... who? Which party has been in control of Congress when gas prices shot up and the economy downturned?
And a downturn (not even a recession... we know that now) is "destroyed"? Are you kidding me?
Re:Crude Oil is an appreciating asset (Score:4, Insightful)
(Ignoring for the moment the environmental aspect of burning oil.)
It's only an appreciating asset up to the point where we develop alternative energy technologies that make it obsolete, as we're clamoring to do. Then it becomes as worthless as whale oil. Well, maybe not quite that worthless, since it'll still find a use in plastics manufacturing, but that only accounts for 5% of current oil consumption.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you were an oil trader and knew that if we started drilling today and that oil wouldn't get used for another 10 years, why in God's name would that affect your bidding on contracts for September delivery?"
Economics is the flip side of politics, and politics is mostly psychology. So yes, perception of the future is often as important as facts.
See also; self-fulfilling prophecy.
Oh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Republicans cut off debate on the Democrats and went home for vacation, I can guarantee you that this story would have been about the Republicans censoring the Democrats.
Re:Protest (Score:5, Insightful)
The public is wrong. The price of crack has gone up and instead of trying to get off, they're demanding increased supply.
Yeah, that tends to happen in the House, where the majority tends to do whatever it wants. In the Senate, the minority has more rights. And your party has played the Senate rules and Harry Reid like a fiddle. Seriously and with no sarcasm, well done. If the Democrats had 1% of the balls your guys have, we'd have never been in Iraq. THAT would have kept oil prices down.
Mostly because the Democrats promised all sorts legislation on which they couldn't deliver. Again, your party has done a good job of using the Senate rules to keep popular Democratic bills from getting passed. Republicans know most people don't care (or even know) about cloture motions or other arcane parliamentary procedures. All your average person knows is that Democrats promised they'd fix everything the Republicans screwed up and they're not doing it.
I wish they had the balls to say that. The American people need to be told the score without any fluff. The age of cheap oil is over and it's going to take some sacrifice to get our economy switched over to renewables. We can't drill our way out of this even if we wanted to. India and China took our advice and liberalized their economies which made them a competitor for the same oil we are using.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:2, Insightful)
A trillion? Really? Most sources I see online put the total proven reserves under U.S. jurisdiction at 21 billion barrels total. Adding on some speculative fields, it's still nowwhere near 100 billion, let alone a trillion barrels.
As for your emotion based argument on your little girl's shoes, it is fairly clear that *nothing* the U.S. could do right now would have a measurable longterm impact on gas/diesel prices in the next 5 years, let alone before your daughter outgrows her current pair of shoes.
Sometimes the world changes. Cheap gas was a fluke. Raging about how unfair it is won't solve anything. Find ways to use less gas. Economize on the things you can, and saving $50 (or whatever children's shoes cost nowadays) is not that hard. I just saved myself about $20/month in electric bills by buying a new $400 fridge. Pays for itself inside of two years and works better too. Sell an SUV, buy a lightly used Civic, the price of gas doesn't matter as much anymore. The world doesn't owe you cheap gas, and shooting the messenger gets you nowhere.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:2, Insightful)
A fair profit fairly earned is one thing. This is something else. Please, tell us all how you think the oil companies are blameless in this and their record profits are nothing more than what they have fairly earned. I'll even bookmark it so I can refer back to it whenever you feel like posting more idiotic garbage and I want to show people what a damn fool you are.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not much, huh?
ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels
That's quite a bit.
I read your post, found it idiotic, saw it was posted by "spun", then it made sense. You're the same turd who who placed blame for the tiger attack incident at the San Francisco Zoo earlier this year on the fact that the zoo was privately owned. Because, you know, private businesses are always out trying to devise ways to kill the people who give them money.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain why the price of oil dropped quite a bit the same day the Bush rescinded the executive ban on drilling then?
That's too easy: The oil companies benefit from the Republican policies. They want them to stay this way. They drop the prices temporarily on the same day that their puppet makes his announcement. See it works?! Aren't we awesome! Hey what's that over there! Look a monkey!
The oil companies have thousands of miles of land that they have already leased from the government and have full permission to drill. They aren't doing it. Having access to more land isn't the problem. This is all a spin campaign. Why is it so hard to see that?
It's not about the fundamentals (Score:4, Insightful)
Increased capacity down the line might move oil producers to increase their production now (because of the decreased future profits from keeping it in the ground). 20-40$ per barrel is of course a stupid amount of money to account for that.
The market doesn't speculate based on fundamentals though, the market speculates on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on based on what they perceive the market will speculate on .... based on the fundamentals. Pumping up bubbles is a completely rational thing to do when leverage is available (and the collapse of the housing markets have made a lot of capital available for oil speculation). Or at least it's rational as long as you think you are smarter than everyone else, better able to find the percentage advantages needed to make the most of the leverage and smart enough to see when to get out.
It's not so much that the announcement of drilling would change the fundamentals, but everyone expects it to be the pin prick which will burst the bubble (which thus becomes a self fulfilling prophecy). Don't be the one left holding the bag ;)
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well most speculation isn't 5 or 6 years in the future. It's done a few months ahead.
If Congress said "drill wherever you want" right now, we would see exactly 0 barrels of that oil this year.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
So people aren't rational utility maximizers? There goes a good deal of free market theory.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
The REAL cause of the high prices is NOT the traders, it is the problems with supply. Supply cannot keep up with the DEMAND. So, prices go up.
Can you define "supply" as you use it here?
Do you mean:
I'll grant you that for some of the various definitions of "supply", then, yes, it isn't keeping up with demand. The truth is that the real supply of oil on the planet is still far in excess of our demands for the next 40-50 years. But, if there isn't much oil available for sale on the commodities market, then the price will go up, even if there really is plenty of oil out there.
Well, they could just *stay* in DC all the time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe those people that I elect and pay shouldn't be on vacation while I'm looking for second job so I can pay for the gas to get to my first job!
If you really want your elected representatives to spend all of their time in DC, I'm sure some of them would be perfectly fine with that. Sure, you can call being out of session and returning to the districts they actually represent a 'vacation'... but most of the time, I wouldn't.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
I take exception to your characterization of the current gas prices as "horrific". C'mon, I mean the Holocaust was horrific, the beheading on the bus in Canada yesterday was horrific. Gas prices making a tank of gas for an SUV almost $100 is not horrific.
As far as I am concerned, the less driving we do the better off we are. That is why I opposed recent moves in Connecticut to lower the state gas tax (doing what I can, by writing my state lawmakers). Lowering prices a few cents only puts $0.20 a week per $.01 drop in price, hardly something to raise my taxes elsewhere to cover.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
As you can see from replies, the extra stuff you threw in at the end of that sentence, only distracts people. The fact that the oil companies are making record profits, is utterly irrelevant to your point. But then it gets people to complain about that part (the irrelevant and unimportant tangent) of your statement, and then they're no longer listening to what you really said.
If people want to bitch about the proposed drilling changes, they should focus on the costs of the drilling (environmental, I guess? or is there a government subsidy here too?), and compare that to the expected benefit (nearly null). Throwing in additional snipes at the oil companies just turns it into an us-vs-them bitchfest, instead of the cost/benefit analysis that it should be.
I swear, every single thing I've read about this topic, has included this irrelevant bullshit, and the result of it has been the same every time: complete lack of communication.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:4, Insightful)
A fair profit fairly earned is one thing. This is something else.
Exxon's projected profit: $11.68 billion
Exxon's 2007 revenue: $404.55 billion
So on $400 an $11 markup is gouging? I want to shop where YOU shop.
Their last record, by the way was $11.66 billion last year. At that time gas was $1/gallon cheaper, so it stands to reason that this 'record' is actually poorer performance.
AND, do you want to know who's #2 in the 'record profits' field? Is it Shell, Conoco, etc? Nope, it's Walmart. Look it up.
This is a talking point, and little else.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell people you are drilling and yeah, the oil won't enter the stream for 10, 15 years but the speculative properties alone will drop crude by another $20 or $40, easy.
Actually by most industry estimates there will be a noticeable increase in oil production in just 5 years. Yes it will take 10 years or so to get the full benefit but any increase in production will help in the meantime.
Another thing to note is that 10 years ago Bill Clinton vetoed offshore drilling. If he had not done this then we would be reaping the full benefits of offshore drilling TODAY. For the Democrats to NOW use the excuse "you won't get the benefit for 10 years"...well that's just patently ridiculous.
Re:Protest (Score:3, Insightful)
"The public is wrong. The price of crack has gone up and instead of trying to get off, they're demanding increased supply."
You get points for at least being honest about your position. That puts you ahead of Pelosi and Reid.
"Yeah, that tends to happen in the House, where the majority tends to do whatever it wants. In the Senate, the minority has more rights. And your party has played the Senate rules and Harry Reid like a fiddle. Seriously and with no sarcasm, well done."
In the previous Senate, Democrats did the same thing Republicans are doing now. Face it, how you look at an obstructionist minority depends on which side of the fence you're on. When Democrats were blocking judges, they were saving democracy... if you're a Democrat. When Republicans were out-maneuvering Harry Reid, they were saving Democracy... if you're a Republican.
" All your average person knows is that Democrats promised they'd fix everything the Republicans screwed up and they're not doing it."
People aren't quite as dumb as clueless as some think. Liberals seem to have this idea that the public supports this new swath of New Deal-type legislation Democrats want. I think not. Democrats got the majority because the public was angry at Republicans, and Democrats aren't the GOP, so they get in. I think Democrats are making a big mistake if they truly believe there's a groundswell of support for a new Great Society or something. Hell, we haven't forgotten the old Great Society.
People aren't mad at Congress because Democrats aren't liberal enough. You're making a huge error in judgement if you believe that. They're mad at Congress because Democrats promised that, among other things, they'd be fiscally conservative and the "most ethical Congress in history". And from what people can see, the Congress is just the same old clown car, only with different drivers.
Re:Nancy "Marx" Pelosi (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a simple supply and demand problem. The supply is scarce so the cost rises. This allows oil speculators to raise the price even higher.
What's up with this "speculation" scapegoat recently? Like you said, oil price is a supply and demand problem: oil future's trading doesn't effect supply or demand since most of the contracts are never physically settled. To quote the Economist, "And since no oil is ever held back from the market, these bets do not affect the price of oil any more than bets on a football match affect the result."
I bloody hate people who trash futures and the basic derivatives, because these instruments can be extremely helpful for the economy. For example, hedging costs and reducing revenue volatility.
Read this article [economist.com] on the Economist, and maybe you'll learn something.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:2, Insightful)
Spun,
You're fighting a losing battle if you think you're going to make one of these "conservatives" see reason.
There are 20-plus million acres that are currently leased by the oil companies which have either been drilled and then capped or never drilled at all.
The reason you are seeing this push to drill is because the oil companies want to lock in the lease prices and the royalties, even on this tiny bit of land called "ANWR" while Bush and Cheney are in the White House because they know they'll get a much better deal from them than they will from the Obama Administration. Eveny they realize that John McCain doesn't have a chance to be elected president.
Of the 40,000 active oil fields in the world, not one of them is refilling itself. Oil is more than halfway to being used up. There are wind farms coming online that will have the same output as a medium-sized nuclear plant. When that happens, and people realize that we can obtain energy without having to burn a limited resource, it's game over for the oil companies, at least as far as making the kind of immoral profits they are currently making.
And the best part, is that bringing these wind and solar and nuclear plants online and creating the transmission hardware for them, will create enough jobs to transform the labor market in this country in the same way that the computer revolution did. There will be lots and lots of new, well-paying jobs, we won't be at the mercy of countries that don't like us for fuel, and the cost of energy will go down.
But George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain and the big oil companies are using disaster capitalism to force changes on the American people that would be unthinkable otherwise.
Mark my words: it may be forced on us by the rest of the world community, but at some point down the line, George Bush and Dick Cheney will have to face what Pinochet faced. America (and the world) will demand retribution for what these people have done to this country (and to the world). They were elected to protect the nation and the Constitution, to be stewards of our resources and to lead our military. Instead, they have cost us half a century of progress and have made the United States a pariah in the world community. They are the worst kind of mass criminals. But I have no doubt that eventually the American people will demand accountability from these turds, and from anyone who enabled them.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, tell us all how you think the oil companies are blameless in this and their record profits are nothing more than what they have fairly earned. I'll even bookmark it so I can refer back to it whenever you feel like posting more idiotic garbage and I want to show people what a damn fool you are.
You can do division, can't you? Take $11.6 billion in profit and divide it into $138 billion of revenue. Exxon Mobil's making eight cents on the dollar.
Your post made it into my favorites, though.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of like blaming RC Cola for a rise in soda prices. They'll get increased profits as they raise to match Coke and Pepsi, but they didn't start the rise.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Want to know something... Humanity is stupid!
Read Taleb's book, fooled by randomness and black swan. He says that humans never get ready for things because the costs associated with getting ready outweigh the results.
His example was 9/11. One of the things he said that would have avoided the horrific act are bolted doors. Now imagine going back in time and saying, "I want to avoid a horrific act that will save much much much grief. And one of the ways to do this is to bolt the pilot doors."
The first answer would be no because of the involved costs. But imagine for the moment that they did do that. And imagine waiting for 9/11, and nothing happened. Imagine the reaction. It would be, "oh we just wasted all this money to stop a horrific act that did not happen?"
The thing is that it did stop the horrific act and it did stop the grief, but people would not appreciate it. That's why humans never prepare for things... Sad, but very very true...
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that shale oil is incredibly difficult and expensive to process, right? So, the actual amounts that are economically extractable are minuscule compared to demand.
And, you know, private businesses exist to make money, not ensure the safety of anyone. If it looks cheaper to do something dangerous, they will do it. Remember the Pinto recall?
Re:Cancel vacation to pass more laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
What laws did they put in effect that are causing you to go broke? I'm not going broke driving to work, maybe your budget problems aren't actually congress' fault, you ever think of that?
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, it's in Colorado. And Utah. And Wyoming. How much of your precious oil shale will this "critical Energy Policy shift" drill up? Exactly zero barrels.
Re:A cheap and embarrassing Republican stunt (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States isn't ok right now. It's fragile and crumbling.
Right.
Those elected officials want to spend their August kicking up their shoes
And then campaigning to remain in power.
when unemployment is at an all-time high?
Uh, no? Where'd you get that? We're at close to 'full' employment, 94.3% currently, or 5.7% unemployment. Have a look at this chart [thinkinboutstuff.com] for perspective.
The only reason I'm sure they don't use the constitution as toilet paper is because some of them would actually read if that were the case.
Wait, and you want these guys passing more laws? All they're gonna do is increase the debt and further devalue the dollar.
I have an idea: Two months of Congress each year where they're only allowed to repeal laws.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
When Bush lifted the presidential ban on drilling, oil prices dropped $9 in a day. Now you are telling me following through won't do anything? You obviously are not familiar with the market forces in play. It's not just supply and demand and what percent we can produce, it's the fact we are producing. Read my other posts in this thread.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
As you can see from replies, the extra stuff you threw in at the end of that sentence, only distracts people. The fact that the oil companies are making record profits, is utterly irrelevant to your point.
I don't know what school of economics you went to, but if the oil companies are making record profits, that suggests (to me at least) that the product they are selling is far above the equilibrium point.
If oil companies were making minimal or negative profits and the price of oil was $100+ then I'd say we have a real problem in the commodities market.
Re:How about the CNN source? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
US companies didn't bother to submit a bid because legally they couldn't drill that close to US shore. China has no such limitation.
I think they didn't submit bids because they didn't want to go to prison for violating trade sanctions against Cuba.
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Just read in the news that 10 (of 13) of the major budget bills haven't been passed yet. They're due in a month, as I recall.
If it's not pressing business to pass a budget on time, why was there so much howling when it was the Republicans not passing a budget bill on time when Clinton was President?
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:2, Insightful)
"There are 20-plus million acres that are currently leased by the oil companies which have either been drilled and then capped or never drilled at all."
That's a politicians talking point. I'm tired of hearing it from every talking head and I'm not buying it.
If they capped the wells it's because they weren't profitable enough. If they didn't drill it's because they didn't think it would make money.
Have you done the geological surveys on that land? How much would the average cost of extraction be for a barrel of oil in those 20 million acres? An oil company might have to spend tens of millions of dollars to develop an oil field. If you're so certain that there's oil there, are YOU willing to guarantee that they'll make a profit after their geologists say it's not worth it?
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd start watching CSPAN at that point.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:2, Insightful)
"I happen to think it's an unfair profit. If you believe otherwise, just go ahead and state that you believe the profits are fair."
I believe the profits are fair.
The oil companies invest BILLIONS of dollars and put enormous effort into getting gas to the filling stations. They have tens of thousands of employees doing that every day. They take huge risks with their capital.
During the lean times they were out there extracting oil when it was $25 per barrel and nobody was shedding tears for them.
I'm not going to begrudge them their 11% margin during boom times. It's the nature of capitalism. The way to encourage people to take risks is to let them keep their profit when the risks pay off.
Re:Citation (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things: first, as another poster pointed out, fewer people favored the drilling in July than in June. And secondofly, if we assume that sampling is working as intended, half the people who support drilling believe that it will have an immediate effect on prices. That is, some may favor drilling regardless of short term effect, and some may oppose drilling on some other basis. But if we took the 35% from July and explained that drilling wouldn't affect prices in the short term, I wonder how they would respond.
Paranoia lives, apparently (Score:2, Insightful)
""There are 20-plus million acres that are currently leased by the oil companies which have either been drilled and then capped or never drilled at all."
Those lands might have oil. In places we know there's oil... off the coasts and in ANWR... oil companies have been forbidden to drill for purely political reasons. So blaming the oil companies for wanting to prioritize drilling on places other than their current leased lands is hypocritical... they leased them because that was the only alternative after liberals forbade them from drilling in the places that they knew had oil.
What Democrats are doing here is just a stalling tactic, and people see right through it.
"Oil is more than halfway to being used up."
Even if that were true (and there's a lot of dispute on that), that's existing fields. It certainly isn't true for the massive fields we haven't even touched yet, including the arctic, the US coasts, and of of Brazil's coast. There's almost certainly more fields we haven't found yet. And that's not including all of the massive amounts of other sources that could be converted to gasoline, like shale and coal. This "peak"... this "scarcity"... is artificially induced.
"Mark my words: it may be forced on us by the rest of the world community, but at some point down the line, George Bush and Dick Cheney will have to face what Pinochet faced."
Only in your fevered fantasies. And there are affordable treatment options for that kind of thing now.
Re:Cancel vacation to pass more laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always congresses fault when the wealthy or conservatives go broke.
contrawise
When democrats, the poor, or liberals are having issues, it's due to our lack of personal responsibility.
Didn't you get the Memo?
---------- Pug
Re:Wow, that's mature (Score:3, Insightful)
They've only taken this break at this time during my entire adult life.
Honestly though, if the GOP hadn't used technicalities and so on to completely undermine any Democratic party involvement in making the law from 2000-2006, they would have a lot more room to ask for a change from the norm on something they cared about.
As it stands, they've treated everyone else like shit for six years, and now they want special privileges? I'm kinda leaning towards "Fuck'em" myself.
Pug
Fuck you spun, you're scum (Score:2, Insightful)
And assholes like you are the reason this country is in such bad shape, assholes like Bush who can't admit when they're wrong.
t0rkm3 provided you with information that proved you didn't have all the facts in the matter and when given that opportunity, instead of using that opportunity to reassess your position (because, in case you didn't realize it, you were irrefutably wrong) you reply to t0rkm3 with "Please try to do basic sanity checks on what you quote, to see if it actually supports your premise."
Guess what asshole? It did. YOU created the "fact" that "there's a little over a year's worth of readily accessible oil in Bakken, not the 174 hundred billion barrels you originally claimed." Read the god damned link. It does not say what you claim there, it says
. That in no way resembles your statement, made immediately after you were proven wrong.
So, instead of intelligently assessing the argument and admitting you were factually wrong about a major point in your post, you lie, attack the person who proved you wrong, and then pretend you were right all along.
How do you have time to post of Slashdot when you're running the country Mr. Bush?
How many of those stories did you notice recently? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you're not aware of it, but from the mid 90s to 2006, there's all kinds of shut-out stories of precisely the kind you're talking about -- the Republican party didn't episodically decide to shut the Dems out, there was a concerted effort and plan for marginalizing them as fully as possible. Take a listen to Act III of This American Life's Houses of Ill Repute [thislife.org] episode if you're interested in some perspective.
Personally, I don't recall stories during that time period about how the Republicans were censoring the Democrats, but perhaps, since you have *guaranteed* that it would be covered in that manner, you can put up some examples.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you feel is a fair profit? The average net profit made by the major oil companies is about 9%. The following companies make profit levels that exceed that (based on most recent ratio of net income over total revenue):
At what point do you call for a windfall tax on these companies?
Re:That's not all! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but the Republicans know that the people are tired of high oil prices and the Republicans want Congress to stop prohibiting oil exploration in most of our seas.
And the Democrats know that oil exploration won't have any immediate effect on oil price, and the correct long term solution is to decrease dependance on oil and oil usage, not increase it. I'm surprised people bother to entertain the Republicans after all the ridiculous stunts they pull, especially here, where I thought people would actually inform themselves of the matters.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Said administration has used policies that have given tax breaks to said oil companies, invaded a country rich in oil on flimsy information, and have more or less legislated around the oil industry.
THAT is what defines a profit as outrageous. They did it with help, at the cost of the average layperson.
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
So? What does that have to do with whether or not it's a bad idea to allow drilling?
Saying that oil is priced higher than it should be, is just a way of saying that the oil companies are The Bad Guys. Is everyone supposed to infer that since the people asking to drill happen to be The Bad Guys, then it should be opposed .. uh .. because they're bad?
The question -- the only question -- is whether drilling makes us come out ahead, or behind. When anti-drilling advocates change the subject to "record profits," the audience gets restless and wanders off.
Re:No Benefit (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on what it costs to pick that money up.
The liberals, when they're not whining about oil company profits (since apparently this is a zero-sum economy?), hint that both drilling and usage, might cause environmental damage. If the drilling makes gasoline cost $.02 per gallon less, but then I have to pay an extra $.06 per gallon in taxes to 1) replant forests in Alaska and clean up oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and 2) buy carbon credits to offset what I'm burning, then yeah, I say leave the money on the ground.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
The cost of drilling in ANWR would be more like this:
(Environmental Damage in remote part of world) - (Jobs Created * Happy People with Jobs) - (Cost Saving per Gallon * Gallons)
and that would alone would demonstrate the cost of Oil went down from what it would otherwise be, but you then have to factor in (People who get jobs at flower shops * Small Business Florists who can afford to higher new employees with cost savings) + (People who get jobs in Bakeries
With math like yours I bet you believe in Carbon Offsets.
Re:How about the CNN source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well maybe those House folks who we seem to be so happy to have go on vacation could spend the time, oh I don't know, repealing a stupid and obsolete embargo?
Re:It's called speculation... (Score:3, Insightful)
...optimistic studies by the Energy Companies
Energy companies are in business to do what...anyone...to make money.
If their "optimistic studies" say that we don't have a lot of oil left in the ground that can be cheaply drilled, then they can get tax breaks for exploration and new methods of extracting oil, they can justify higher prices, and they can generally continue doing what they have for the past 50 years.
Back in the 70s, there were many "studies" from these same energy companies that the oil in the Middle East would all be extracted before the year 2000. And yet, there is now more oil coming out of the ground each day, and now the latest "studies" show that those wells will be dry in about another 20-30 years. See a pattern?
By keeping the run dry date far enough in the future, it allows people to forget about the predictions. But, they keep it close enough that it sounds scary enough so that they can get the tax breaks, higher prices, etc.
<obligatory>I'm sure somewhere in Redmond, there's a lot of chair-throwing going on because Microsoft can't come up as lucrative a business model as the oil companies have.</obligatory>