Since the Iraq progress isn’t as deplorable as the DNC would like, this is just the new rallying cry for withdrawal. However the entire argument is flawed. The economy’s hiccup is not due to oil, but to the housing/lending fallout.

Home prices are correcting after a false, astronomical rise, and it is much needed. Lenders have tightened up on criteria. However the economy is in the dumps because of the domino effect on new construction… which affects work contracts, which affects sales of supplies, which affects the individual workers and family income…

Add in the devaluation of the dollar, again largely tied to rate… which is fluctuating in response to the housing scene.

Oil? Not enuf to cause this. However I do agree that if the DNC really wanted to help citizens at the pump they would do a reprieve on the fed/state gas taxes. That is all that is within their power. They can’t dictate price per barrel, they can’t fix pricing, and there is no immediate cure with add’l refineries.

But they won’t… because they want the tax cash and chaos to play to their political favor – fodder as fuel for their BS. To bad we can’t harness THAT for energy!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Except–and let’s face this honestly” We currently ARE TAXING U.S. oil and natural gas production and an increase in volume would generate much more revenue.

Oh, really? That’s your position on taxation? We’re already taxing all kinds of things; is it your position that all taxes to raise revenue are a good idea? Or is this a position of opportunity?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, you wrote: “We currently ARE TAXING U.S. oil and natural gas production and an increase in volume would generate much more revenue.”

Um…didn’t the GOP give the oil and natural gas industries some fairly large “exploration tax credits” not too long ago? I suspect that those credits would/will take a dent out of any new production revenues.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Except–and let’s face this honestly” We currently ARE TAXING U.S. oil and natural gas production and an increase in volume would generate much more revenue.

Now, that was simple wasn’t it?

The current Democrat prohibitions against further development of U.S. resources means billions more going to OPEC nations and not to the U.S. Treasury to fund alternative energy strategies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

and take the royalties and taxes on that production

Except–and let’s face this honestly–you’d likely be first in line to rail in your bewildered, spittle-flecked manner against raising those taxes, wouldn’t you? This is a clear case of arguing a case from a position you don’t actually believe, simply in order to contradict a lefty.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

IR: There is enough oil, safely available for U.S. consumption to take care of ALL our needs without any outside supply other than Canada. We could pump and use our OWN OIL for the next 20 years and take the royalties and taxes on that production to fund the development and implementation of a hydrogen based economy. The technology which we could then sell to the Arabs for $$TRILLIONS as they would be out of their own oil by then.

But NOOOOOOOO… nasty little Dems just want to demagogue on this issue and blame the problem on someone else.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

IR,

Michigan is moving forward with wind power citing EU nations…. However these same nations are pulling out of windpower as it creates fluctuations in the grid and is a poor investment. No in essense, our idiotic govenor is bolding going down the wrong path citing other nations who are abbandoning it. Solar is nice and all, but looking at even home systems, is priced out of the sky. Maybe nano-tubes will work. maybe something better will come along. Geothermal is nice in a few areas (an Army base actually runs on it and powers the surrounding community).

Also, the Russians do not share your view on peak oil and I believe they have a point. Refineries ARE a good investment as is reducing the number of expensive specialty gasses and increasing octane levels so cars run more efficiently. In my county we have a special “low emmissions” requirement for gas. This “emmission reduction” gas robs vehicles of fuel economy and forces us to buy more gas per week. Supposedly this is “good” for the environment.

Better refineries can extract more gas ber barrel of oil and give us a cushion to improve/mature technologies and infrastructures without crushing the economy before it happens. Conservatives are wrongly accused of not wanting the latter and only the former so we can “get rich” or some other nonsense. In truth, reality demands we mature systems and technologies first and in the interim improve the proven technologies we have now.

Source about Russian theory on no peak oil:
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html

Here is the DOE site showing a lot of information on Oil and other natural resource production/importation/refinement/use in the US and the world.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oil prices are high because it is running out. The reason OPEC is not increasing supply because they can’t. We should be drilling more of our own, but you are poorly misinformed if you think that is the solution. There not enough there to keep up with the growing demand a growing ecomomy needs. Refineries are a bad investment if you trying to get off oil, nuclear plants make more sense with an eye to eventually solar. Niether party is as concerned with this as they need to be.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The Morning Scramble – 3/21/2008…

I started The Morning Scramble over at the main blog earlier this week because I’ve got just so many blogs in my feed reader, it would be selfish to keep them to myself. I know MKH has been doing something like this for a couple weeks; indeed,……

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Bush will still be going to Red China for the 1936 Muni…er, 2008 Beijing Olympics. – Curt asks Obama, “Was the Iraq front for oil or not?” – Stable Hand finds a pastor not afraid of [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0