US to open 3.9m acres in Alaska for drilling

Honest questions. Do you really believe Democrats are going to cut domestic spending? Do you think Obama is going to cut programs?

Those Republicans that reside in the northeast. If they were located in the south they would be considered democrats. Was Ralph Nader and Jimmy Carter for smaller government? They were liberals because they had liberal views and in Carters case governed liberal. A republican that increases domestic spending does not have conservative views so is not a conservative. Just because someone is labeled a philosophy doesn't mean the label is correct. Look at their action then come up with the label. You can't say a certain philosophy didn't work unless it was actually prescribed.

 

Our time? Is there more than one of you?

Maybe you misunderstood me? I read all your post directed at me but not all your post in general. When you made this post: "Did you even read my post? I said that Democrats are focusing on cutting domestic consumption instead of increasing domestic production." I never saw a post directed at me stating such.

 

I'm glad you agree Chip82's post unfairly put this on Pelosi. It does not belong there. I did not put it entirely on Bush II, but he and the republican house and senate had 6 years to implement the Cheney 2001 energy plan and delivered nothing. That's just a fact. Has it been fumbled by every president since Nixon? Yep.

And what is the responsibility of big oil? There was plenty of land leased that was not developed. Did the price of oil outweigh the cost to produce it? If so, its not on the president, none of them. All the presidents could have done is encourage and fund development of alternative sources, like wind, and build transmission lines to spots where there is sufficient wind.

What is so special about the outer continental shelf (OCS) and ANWR? Big oil has only drilled on about 30% of the land they have leased now. I have not seen a good explanation for why that is. I am not opposed to any drilling myself, having grown up on an oilfield, in a company house.

How much would it cost to produce a barrel on the OCS, vs. the land currently leased that has not been produced? I don't know, but we are all guessing without having much information.

There is not a lot of blame to go around as far as 2001-2006, all republican white house, senate, house. Dems have had the house and senate for 18 months, and can't override a veto (except the recent one on dr. medicare reimbursements). If you see Bush trying to curtail spending, its just because the dems are trying to throw a bone to their people, and Bush wants all the bones going to HIS cronies, like they did the first six years. The man cares nothing about the little people, just the CEO's that support him.

Oversimplification.

1. Rapid expansion of the money supply which is required when running the budget deficit we run is a bigger cause of inflation. The huge budget deficit and over expansion of the money supply have sunk the USD. The weak dollar raises the cost of ALL imported goods, and we import 70% of our oil. Poor monetary policy is a major cause of inflation. The high cost of oil did not cause health care to inflate at 10% annually since 2001, nor did it affect college tuition, nor housing prices since 2001.

2. High energy prices have contributed to inflation, but they are driven by the falling dollar (see poor monetary policy), increase world demand driven by China and India, and diminishing supplies of easy to produce oil being replaced by hard to produce (therefore more expensive) oil.

Dream on, pure BS from Cato.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9261

I want to know how those Reagan policies were not good enough to get Bush I re-elected in 1992 (It's the economy, stupid!), and left George with a big enough budget deficit that he had to raise taxes to cover it, but they were good enough to help Clinton balance the budget, after the Bush I tax increase, followed by the Clinton tax increase in 1993? Please explain that to me!

People who were rich never paid the 70% tax rate. There were plenty of loopholes. The rich paid at lower rates than working americans. It got so bad, they passed the "alternative minimum tax" to force millionaires to pay something, they just forgot to index the income level at which it kicks in.

The peace dividend was real and it helped with balancing the budget, that is true.

But, Clinton cut welfare spending in 1996, and he cut social security and federal retirement spending about the same time, without anyone much realizing it. They went in and redefined how the CPI was calcuated, with the intent of "lowering inflation". Then all the COLA's the govt paid on went down, forever. This saved the govt. trillions over the next 30 or 40 years. Clinton doesn't get credit for it, but it was a good example of fiscal conservatism, and in the long run has a MUCH bigger impact than the peace dividend.

1997 congressional hearing:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju38951.000/hju38951_0f.htm

1999 University of California benefits newsletter:

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/forms_pubs/newsletters/nd_sum2000.pdf

I happen to think the intent of the change is not what was stated (yes, the dems lie also), but it was a very quiet long term reduction in social security payouts as well as the regular govt. worker retiree programs and many private ones as well.

So, don't talk to me about the dems not being willing to make cuts in govt. spending. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Clinton did it, with welfare and social security and contributed to improved long term fiscal responsibility. Most folks just don't listen to what's going on well enough.

As Alan Greenspan said, Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN president we've had in a long time!

 

I pretty much agree with you here except that the Democrats have been blocking bills that would allow drilling in Alaska. If we started drilling in Alaska 10 years ago we would be reaping those benefits today. We really don't know how much those benefits would be today. However, considering we are using about 97% of current supply it wouldn't take much to really help with the supply constraints.

My understanding is that this land does not have high potential for good oil extraction.

Name one single bill Bush vetoed that was a non-military spending reduction bill.

Budget deficits are nothing new. We had them during the Reagan years yet we had a strong dollar and low inflation. How do you explains this? As far as percent of GNP I wonder how does todays deficits compare to those under Reagan. Throughout Bush II's terms there has been deficits and through the first 7 years no sign of inflation until now.

Seems to me the Democrats would be for higher prices on imports. Wouldn't those higher prices make US products more competitive domestically and internationally?

It appears that health care cost really started to accelerate in 1997 which was near the beginning of Clinton's second term. Are you blaming this on a weak dollar too?

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/hccosts.pdf

Opinions on how the falling dollar affects oil prices differ among experts. I've seen some experts say it has very little affect while others agree with you. I'm not convinced there is a correlation.

Read my lips no new taxes. That's a major reason Bush I did not get re-elected.

Do you have evidence of this and how are you defining the rich?

Glad you agree on that.

Clinton gets credit for the welfare spending bill only because he was president. It was the Republican controlled congress that pushed for the passage and it would have hurt Clinton politically if he did not sign the bill.

I think there's some truth to that statement. During much of his term he governed as a moderate. If Obama wins do you think he will govern as a moderate too?

 

Drilling in Alaska is being bandied about like it would have solved the problem. How much oil is up there, and how much does the US use per year? Maybe it solves the problem, maybe not.

I think all Californians are against drilling off their coast for environmental reasons. Florida also. Why is this not placed on their heads. Many dems voting against offshore drilling were just doing what their constituents wanted.

Link?

Point is the repubs held both chambers for 6 of the last 8 years. Ask them why spending is out of control. Clinton turned over a balanced budget and strong dollar.

Simple. Its not the fact that you have a deficit that is bad. The size of the deficit, and whether the deficit is viewed as temporary or permanent, or even if it can be shrunk, matters also.

US deficits used to run around 50 billion a year in the 70's. Reagan came in and his tax cuts and military spending increase drove the to 300 billion. As the US came out of the 82 recession, the deficit came down. Oil coming down from 35 to 12 a barrel also stimulated the economy, I think more than the tax cuts.

The problem with the dollar now is the deficit is HUGE, has been huge for several years, the economy is weak and investors don't want to be invested in our stock or bond market so dollars are flowing elsewhere. There is too much supply of dollars, and not enough demand for them. Then the price falls. As near as I can tell, there is no one cause of the dollar going down, more like 6 or 8 with a fairly complex interaction. Basically, the world has no confidence in this president to lead the nation to fiscal stability.

You read my post about the definition of inflation being changed in the late 90's to understate inflation. It saved the govt. a ton of money, and it doesn't scare the people when inflation arrives. The govt. is lying to us on inflation. It is not low. Gas is up 300% in 8 years, healthcare growing at 10% annually for years, college tuition up 8% annually for years. Housing was inflating at 15% annually in the hot markets in Ca., Fla., Las Vegas. The only reason it is not more apparent is we offshored our manufacturing base to China and they export their $.65 per hour wage to us in low priced goods. Inflation always BUILDS UP SLOWLY. The 70's inflation started under Nixon, Ford had the WIN button (Whip Inflation Now), and it peaked under Carter. It was killed by fed chairman Paul Volker, my hero, by raising interest rates to 15% and causing the recession of 81-82, and effectively killing the steel industry in the US.

That is not a policy issue, that is an outcome of US policy. There is nothing wrong with our goods becoming more competitive price wise. You can accomplish it via improving production efficiency, or through poor monetary and fiscal policy. I submit it is better to become price competitive the good old fashioned way, to earn it through better R&D and manuf. prowess.

No, health care is not a function of the dollar, its pretty much a domestic issue. That's why up above, I replied above to you that the high cost of oil is NOT the primary driver of accelerating inflation.

The falling dollar affects the price of ALL imported goods. Think about it. Explain how it would affect everything imported, except oil?

Why did he have to raise taxes? Budget deficit got too high, hit $350 billion a year, exceeding the largest Reagan deficit. The Reagan tax cuts were not a panacea, they did not work well in the long run. The US economy benefited more from oil going from 35 down to 12 a barrel.

Other than having lived through it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

Not true. Clinton campaigned on reforming the welfare system in 92. It was part of his plan. Clinton vetoed the first two welfare reform bills sent by the repub congress. He didn't have to sign anything. Clinton was a popular president and had nothing to fear from public opinion, generally speaking.

Can you produce a link to that in something other than a right wing group?

Clinton ran and governed as a moderate. All presidents do, except the current one, who is just not bright enough to govern. Yes, I think Obama will govern from the center. He's a bright guy.

I do wish if Obama wins, that the repubs had one house of congress. The older I get, the better gridlock looks to me. Then, we only do things that are deemed necessary by everyone.

 

Couldn't agree more. I was a big cheerleader of the Repubs having control of Congress, the Senate and the White House. That didn't turn out very well for me.

 

We will never know because the Democrats voted the bills down.

I think polls indicate the tide is turning in favor of drilling.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1519

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHcuoEcit0_kR272HwGKm6sL1K6gD921NR480

I was just pointing out that a lower dollar does have some positive effects. However, I agree a stronger dollar is much more beneficial as a whole.

Honestly I can't but I think this guy does a good job.

http://www.jeffvail.net/2008/06/is-falling-dollar-behind-oil-price.html

I don't think Bush(I) had to raise taxes. He could have cut spending. Once again why are deficits so easily blamed on the tax payer not paying enough taxes? Why is the blame not put on wasteful and out of control government spending?

I believe the Reagan tax cuts had an enormously positive effect on the economy for many years after they took place.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Sure. Here's one from the Wall Street Journal.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.autos.toyota/2006-08/msg04211.html

Dick Morris himself was on Fox news a few weeks ago saying that he told Clinton that this issue could cost him re-election.

And another:
http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/four_yea.shtml

I couldn't agree more. However, under the current political environment it's not looking good for that scenario.

 

There are many problems with Mr. Vail's limited analysis. First, it is too short to be conclusive. The time scale is not clearly marked, but my interpretation is that it is measured in days, and spans several months. You can't prove anything about the impact of a multi year currency movement in a timeframe that short.

I have never said the value of the dollar is the ONLY thing driving the price of oil. Clearly supply and demand is the most important factor. Additionally, it is reasonable that a 50% drop in the value of the dollar against the euro has some influence on the price of oil, the same as it has on all imported goods. The USD also dropped 40% against the Canadian dollar in the last 7 years, and Canada is our #1 source of imported oil. On any given day, additional influences on the price of oil are the weather (if there's a hurricane in the Gulf), and geo political tensions (like if the world is concerned about a shooting war in the middle east disrupting shipments). In a period of a few months, some of the smaller influencing items may have taken precedence, like geopolitical unrest can do for a few weeks at a time, it may be the most important thing, and a short time later, it may not influence things at all. The graph does not take all the other factors into consideration. Bottom line, it is a complex interaction of forces that come together to affect the price of oil, and the value of the dollar is one of them. IMO, it is not as important as supply and demand, which is always king, but if the value of the dollar plunges as it has under Bush, it is reflected in the price of a barrel of oil just like all other imported goods, unless we are talking about suspending all conventional rules of economics.

This one is long and complicated, with ugliness, IMO. It really gets to the root of things, and is worth exploring, but it may be its own thread. Simple answer, figuring out what you're going to cut isn't easy. Bush I had a democratic congress. He had a recession going on, so tax revenue was down. They were planning how to do the military cuts after the Soviet Union disintegrated, but that took time. I don't think he had a realistic alternative that he could actually accomplish.

 

The Wall St. Journal is a right leaning paper. Dick Morris was fired by Clinton after being outed by his hooker. He has since turned against the Clintons after they fired him, and seems to take every opportunity to take shots at them, often for money.

Here is another view, from a source that is not patently biased that I can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

As far as the repub congress forcing things on Clinton, don't believe it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/05/congress.returns/

Clinton had NO FEAR of losing the election in 96, none at all. Dick Morris assertion that Clinton signed the wefare reform he campaigned on in 92 out of fear of losing the election is a TOTAL JOKE.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1375

I don't like that source, don't know anything about them, but it just documents that Clinton was steamrolling Dole, and had nothing to fear, and he'd pretty much subdued the congress after they came off looking dumb after shutting down the govt.

Bottom line, it took two to tango, and the worked together and got R done.

Both get credit IMO. For the WSJ to attempt to deny Clinton his due is irresponsible journalism, and the repubs attempting to claim total credit for what was a bi-partisan effort, which is unethical.

Here's the word on Dick Morris:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/1...foley-florida-elections-officials-say/?p=3967