<p>
[quote]
McCain believes that offshore drilling will actually have an affect. Drilling offshore will add 200 000 barrels a day to the American oil supply (if the Americans can buy that oil in the first place). Guess what? We use 20 million barrels a day!
[/quote]
You know what global oil consumption will be in 10 years? How exactly do you know it will or will not have an effect?</p>
<p>
[quote]
All this nonsense about "American oil" is infuriating.
[/quote]
And I agree. The fact we import 20MM bbl/day implies that we will consume virtually everything we produce though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, the oil industry is not a nationalized one. If an oil company drills Floridian oil, it has the right to sell it to the highest bidder.
[/quote]
Which will almost certainly always be a US refinery?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't automatically go to American oil pumps.
[/quote]
Nope, it's just highly likely it goes to our gas pumps. Of course, this has real meaning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama does not support big oil and never has, no matter what certain factions try to say.
[/quote]
He does support ethanol production though. That says enough. At least big oil floats on it's own merits. Any energy source that requires subsidies to be profitable is not a true "energy" source.</p>
<p>Honestly anybody who thinks Obama's plan will help the economy doesn't know to much about economics. He wants to raise the capital gains tax, even when people show him data that govt revenues are higher the lower the tax it is. He wants to Tax Big Oil, when they profit 10% but he leaves other sectors alone like tech that profits 30-40%. The guy is a joke. I have yet to see 1 site that gives Obama a good rating for the tax payers.</p>
<p>Americans for Tax Reform lifetime ratings
Obama 7.5
John McCain 82.7</p>
<p>Nobody here is tackling the bigger issue, which is that Obama is a Fraud. If he actually wanted to help Americans, all he would have to do is give a EO to abolish the fed and replace currency creation and management to the Mint and the BEP by congress. We still owe the Fed a lot of interest on the loaned currency, that we will need to pay off, but its worth it.</p>
<p>Another topic is that you guys think when Obama steps into office in January 2009 that he will be able to start right up with his plans. If he plans to do anything with his radical plans and the budget, all the BS he preaches, he will need to wait for Sept 30th of 2009 when the Fiscal year ends. Bush still will have his grasp on America until then.</p>
<p>why tax oil with only 10% profit and not tax tech with 30%. I think there should be limited taxes. But people think oh these are big companies they should be taxed more and more.</p>
<p>People have no idea how much they are Taxed.</p>
<p>Who are these economists, dumb ass keynesian's.</p>
<p>You do know that when Reagan came into office after Carter, the democrat who did such a bad job, the inflation rate stood at 11.83% and unemployment at 7.5%. Guess what solved that. would it be supply side economics. YES.</p>
<p>For every dollar of profits for big oil, the US government gets three dollars in taxes. </p>
<p>Exxon Mobil had $10 billion in profits, but has paid $30 billion in taxes. </p>
<p>Economics 101 says, taxes are passed from corporations to consumers as higher prices. </p>
<p>Obama is wrong to suggest a windfall profits tax. We already tax big oil alot and prices are not lower. In fact if Taxes were LOWER, then prices would be lower, though I'm not advocating lower corporate taxes.</p>
<p>I just think its stupid to want lower prices by increasing taxes.</p>
<p>We also want more oil exploration but Obama's windfall profits tax means companies thave less capital available to invest.</p>
<p>The windfall profits tax isn't a serious solution to the gas price problem.</p>
<p>Obama thinks US voters are stupid and by "socking it to the rich oil companies" they will forget high gas prices prices caused by the Left wing environmment lobby.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know what global oil consumption will be in 10 years? How exactly do you know it will or will not have an effect?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that oil consumption might go down in the future (in a conservative, anti-green, anti-Kyoto world), and that that 200 000 barrels will suddenly represent more than merely 1% of national daily consumption?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which will almost certainly always be a US refinery?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What makes you so sure of that? And even if they do win the bidding wars, other countries will have bumped up the price so that any possible savings are taken away from the consumers in order to compensate for that cost. </p>
<p>
[quote]
why tax oil with only 10% profit and not tax tech with 30%. I think there should be limited taxes. But people think oh these are big companies they should be taxed more and more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean "tax tech"? You mean IT companies? Well, when standard laptops become $3000 a unit and internet connections cost $200 a month, and dependence on IT threatens national security, I'll get back to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do know that when Reagan came into office after Carter, the democrat who did such a bad job, the inflation rate stood at 11.83% and unemployment at 7.5%. Guess what solved that. would it be supply side economics. YES.
<p>Reagan presided over a $200 billion deficit, and it took a Democrat to turn that into a surplus. And you put a Reagonomist back in the White House and what happens? Record deficits once again and an economy in the worst shape since the late 1920s.</p>
[/quote]
Please tell me you're not dismissing an entire school of economics, one that also happens to be one of the most demonstrably accurate ones?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do know that when Reagan came into office after Carter, the democrat who did such a bad job, the inflation rate stood at 11.83% and unemployment at 7.5%. Guess what solved that. would it be supply side economics. YES.
[/quote]
I was going to say something about this, but nbachris already did a pretty good job.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you saying that oil consumption might go down in the future (in a conservative, anti-green, anti-Kyoto world), and that that 200 000 barrels will suddenly represent more than merely 1% of national daily consumption?
[/quote]
You say "oil consumption" as if it has meaning. I'm saying it's quite possible for oil production to go down in 10 years due to geologic constraints. Consumption tracks production.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes you so sure of that? And even if they do win the bidding wars, other countries will have bumped up the price so that any possible savings are taken away from the consumers in order to compensate for that cost.
[/quote]
No. Increasing the global supply of oil will reduce the global cost of oil. The price will be less than what it would have been. Now, you can argue the price will not go down by very much. Fine, but it certainly won't be <em>higher</em>.</p>
<p>Nevermind the fact there are jobs (most likely American jobs) and you bring profits back to investors and not NOCs & not foreign governments.</p>
<p>Yes I will blame the OPEC crisis on Carter, he is if not the worst president we have ever had, even worse than Bush and he put more strain on this country than Bush has even come close to. He should have been able to handle it, he couldn't. Gas was plentiful in the 1970's and at the peak of the problem under carter gas was as expensive as it was this year 2008 in may.</p>
<p>Reagan dropped it by 2.3% and brought it to 5.3% which is ~5% and ~5% is considered a pristine number for a unemployment rate in any economy. It is dangerous to go below that. </p>
<p>The drop in Inflation is what saved the economy after carter. Though you forgot to mention that one. </p>
<p>Jarn</p>
<p>You keep bringing up the Tax Policy Center, but I honestly cant tryst them when I read that outrageous pdf you gave me. I have posted more links that 1 from more organizations that all say McCain is better economically, but only the Liberal leaning Tax Policy Center says Obama will be better. Im sorry but I have to doubt that one.</p>
<p>Keynesian economics is a joke. So I am dismissing one of the least effective economic schools of all time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Keynesian economics is a joke. So I am dismissing one of the least effective economic schools of all time.
[/quote]
Considering that Keynesian has been one of the most historically accurate, I find that laughable. It was used with much success up until the stagflation of the 1970s and not so much after that because the Keynesian models of the day couldn't explain stagflation. Then it came back in 1990 when new models were created that could explain it and it is becoming much more widely used again.</p>
<p>" Score one for Obama
The NY Times reports:</p>
<pre><code>Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clintons Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports.
</code></pre>
<p>I don't know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal. More common is the reaction of a friend of mine (a veteran of the Clinton administration) who calls the idea "ludicrous."</p>
<p>And one of Obama's top economic advisers is centrist Jason Furman. So what's with your statement that only leftists prefer Obama, horse? I'm a centrist liberal myself and was planning to vote Republican until I read Obama's book.</p>
<p>I'm not an expert on 1970s political history, but how exactly was the OPEC crisis Jimmy Carter's fault? Was he supposed to find a panacea for centuries of religious prejudice and stop the Arab-Israeli conflict?</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter was a pacifist who didn't understand world politics. He thought if you kissed "the bear" the bear would kiss back. </p>
<p>Instead the bear invaded Afganistan.</p>
<p>Carter thought if you allowed the Ayahtolahs to take power in Iran and didn't antagonize them, they would become our friends. Instead they took all those hostages at the US embassy, who weren't released until after Reagon was elected. </p>
<p>Carters connection to the Oil crisis is his windfall profits tax. The same type of tax Obama is proposing. It will increase oil prices, as oil companies pass along the cost of the tax to consumers, it will discourage more oil exploration in this country, the opposite of what we need.</p>
<p>O"bambi's" foreign policy is similar to Carters. Kiss the evil people and hope they are nice. The results will be the same as Carters, disaster. Carter was the worst president of the last half of the 20th centure. </p>
