Yes, inevitably we’d see the Dems getting mad about rising oil prices but not for the same reasons as you, I, and rational people everywhere. While people like Obama are fine with rising gas costs (remember, he’s not mad gas it’s at $4.00 a gallon, he’s just upset that it wasn’t “gradual”), and the Democrats lunatic fear of carbon dioxide in general, this should be a good thing for them that demand and use are down a little. But of course, Dems are concerned with the one thing Dems are always concerned about. Tax and fine revenues.
Two cases in point. Buried a ways down in this story from CNN about Americans driving a little bit less is this gem:
Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.
Therein lays the real problem for Liberals everywhere. They’re not getting enough TAXES. Not to worry though, keep in mind that John Conyers (D…..of course) has already greased the wheels for 50 CENT PER GALLON TAX HIKE, on undoubtedly the Dems will push should they take Congress and the White House in the Fall. Not be outdone is point #2. Local and state governments are now slapping “fuel surcharges” on traffic fines and tickets, even as they use those insidious cameras to track down the real criminals in society, the people who go 5 mph over the speed limit or go through a yellow light. It’s all about that tax money for Democrats, never about cutting the budget or pork or unnecessary programs. They can’t even fathom the notion. They can’t even fathom the notion that it’s the citizens who are paying for these revenues.
-Caomhin
19 June 2008
Green Really Is the New Reds. Democratic More Asinine With Every Passing Day
It’s clear just how far to the left Congress truly is. Now we have a second Democrat calling for the nationalization of the oil industry, this time it’s Maurice Hinchey of NY (you’ll recall of course Maxine Walters’ own call for nationalization in the past). So what gives with the Democrats oil policy? Well for starters they hide behind a global warming hoax in order to divert investments into their pet investment projects in order to make a quick buck while demonizing the competition (something they have an extremely long history of doing) as an attempt to monopolize their favored industries.
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
-Caomhin
So When Can We Expect Dodd's Resignation?
It appears that Sen. Christopher Dodd is not only the recipient of an outrageous loan from Countrywide, he’s also hell bent on making us taxpayers bail his friends out. Now, as you can tell, I’m very much a proponent of the free market and my feelings on the mortgage situation is well documented on this site. What Dodd is doing here is utterly despicable.
In the first place, he sought out and received an improper loan from a corporation by using his political office as leverage, something for which he should be booted from office for in the first place. This is a man whom the hard left hailed as a hero during his short lived presidential campaign and it’s not surprising. In addition to unethical actions, he is now seeking to force responsible Americans to bail out irresponsible lenders and borrowers alike. This has nothing to do with fixing the housing market and has everything to do with a CYOA approach employed by Dodd. Read the whole aforementioned story by the Wall Street Journal, it’s sure to raise eyebrows.
How deep are the Democrats in the pockets and how dirty are they on this? Please reference the stories here and here, via Hot Air about Obama’s ties to Countrywide and his demonizing rhetoric on the company while at the same basking in their undying support, so much so that Dodd and the head of Obama’s VP search time both have filthy hands with regard to this scandal. A new type of politician indeed.
-Caomhin
In the first place, he sought out and received an improper loan from a corporation by using his political office as leverage, something for which he should be booted from office for in the first place. This is a man whom the hard left hailed as a hero during his short lived presidential campaign and it’s not surprising. In addition to unethical actions, he is now seeking to force responsible Americans to bail out irresponsible lenders and borrowers alike. This has nothing to do with fixing the housing market and has everything to do with a CYOA approach employed by Dodd. Read the whole aforementioned story by the Wall Street Journal, it’s sure to raise eyebrows.
How deep are the Democrats in the pockets and how dirty are they on this? Please reference the stories here and here, via Hot Air about Obama’s ties to Countrywide and his demonizing rhetoric on the company while at the same basking in their undying support, so much so that Dodd and the head of Obama’s VP search time both have filthy hands with regard to this scandal. A new type of politician indeed.
-Caomhin
10 June 2008
GOP Stops Democratic Bill to Committ Economic Suicide
We dodged a huge bullet today, but I really wonder for how long we'll be able to hold this idiotic, already tried and failed, "windfall" tax on oil profits. There's a multitude of issues that are at stake here and the Dems are playing this out as only the socialists can. Only one Dem voted against proceeding with the bill, Mary Landrieu of LA, and only because she's up for re-election in Louisiana, and she's a big target for the GOP this fall. Here are just a few problems with this bill:
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
-Caomhin
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
-Caomhin
Missle Defense Test: Successful Again
We successfully shot down a ballistic missile off the coast of Hawaii using interceptors from the USS Erie. This is huge. While Democrats like Barack Obama and indeed the Dems in generally going back to the Reagan administration have staunchly opposed missile defense as some hair brained scheme, it is now apparent that our system is quite capable of defending us from nuclear attacks. That's something that should be damn near headline news, instead its admonished to near the back of news reports. This was a major investment that has truly paid off for us. This will go a long way to providing an even greater level of national defense. Of course the Russians and the Chinese are none too happy that we've developed such advanced weapon systems that we can fend off the most devastating of conventional attacks, but that is to be expected. The military should be commended for such a great achievement, equally as impressive as the satellite shoot down.
-Caomhin
-Caomhin
Government Intervention A Big Part of the Mortgage Mess
Shocking. Anyone still not see how the government causes more problems than it cures? Of course the policies were set in place with the best of intention in mind, that being to help those who were financially borderline for a solid loan to attain one...at high risk. The government took a big gamble with our tax dollar, again, for a purpose that had honorable intentions (that being to help out lower income families), and lost big for us by exposing tax dollars to an unacceptable level of risk that the vast majority of responsible, free market companies wouldn't touch. The result:
The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.
So to reiterate, the government backed agencies decided to take higher risks with tax payer dollars, seeking to increase their own revenue, and now, not only have we lost the tax dollars used to purchase these loans, subsequently, liberal members of Congress are looking to take even more tax dollars from us to "fix" the problem. You can see where this is going. How are these lessons lost on our so called leaders? Despite the intentions of central planners to assist people, it was greed on the government level and the lack of accountability that lead the vast majorities in the first place, and instead of helping a small percentage of the population, they hurt the vast majority of the population instead.
-Caomhin
The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.
So to reiterate, the government backed agencies decided to take higher risks with tax payer dollars, seeking to increase their own revenue, and now, not only have we lost the tax dollars used to purchase these loans, subsequently, liberal members of Congress are looking to take even more tax dollars from us to "fix" the problem. You can see where this is going. How are these lessons lost on our so called leaders? Despite the intentions of central planners to assist people, it was greed on the government level and the lack of accountability that lead the vast majorities in the first place, and instead of helping a small percentage of the population, they hurt the vast majority of the population instead.
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
