For the oil clueless

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by derf

Agreed, they are both dependent on each other to spend more money than the last guy so they can blame the last guy for spending too much while promising not to do the same while spending more than the last guy......

Yeah that is exactly what I wanted to say. lol

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by derf

... In fact i believe that half of what he says is only to be different from everyone else, I'm not sure he really believes it.

I don't agree..he aligns himself with the Libertarian party view of non-interventionism and limited government for which most decisions should be left up to the states. He is consistent in his voting.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by derf

Both viable but completely unrealistic options. Too many people are making too much money for them not to screw everyone else.

Realistic actually, if politicians started to be charged for getting kick-b...., I mean if 'campaign contributions' were limited.

[derf]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

I don't agree..he aligns himself with the Libertarian party view of non-interventionism and limited government for which most decisions should be left up to the states. He is consistent in his voting.

Yes, hes very consistent, but hes also a politician, thus he is a proffessional liar and thief and has been deemed to be operating in his own self interest. Since his actions can only be assumed for his own benefit, it can also be assumed that he votes a certain way to benefit himself, and my guess would be that his major benefit is keeping his job, so he votes the way he dos to stay in office. Most politicians follow party lines and vote for stuff because thats where their election money comes from, the party and the party affiliation. Paul has established himself as the libertarian republican guy from TX who bucks the system. Thats what people donate their money to, the libertarian republican who bucks the system. Its the role he plays and the niche he fills.

I might be completely wrong about that ^, but I dont really trust anybody in DC, they are all theifs and liars. Until proven otherwise (and even then I truly doubt it) I will belive that they are all self serving corrupt liars. Including Paul. And thats my opinion.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Realistic actually, if politicians started to be charged for getting kick-b...., I mean if 'campaign contributions' were limited.

Again, too many people making too much money off it to change it now. Thus it is completely unrealistic.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by '73 H1 Triple

Since the speculators are currently responsible for about 20-25% of the increase in the per barrel price, why not tax them at 5X what they make?

I can guarantee that if the oil speculators were taxed $500 for every $100 they made, the price of oil would would drop.

You can also be sure that someone in the industry would NOT suggest that

You don't seem to realize that speculators can and do make money when they correctly guess that the price of oil will drop as well. They make money when they are right about what will happen with oil, whether it goes up or down. They lose money when they are wrong about what will happen with oil, up or down. Blaming speculators for the price of oil is like blaming the recent tornadoes on meteorologists.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

You don't seem to realize that speculators can and do make money when they correctly guess that the price of oil will drop as well. They make money when they are right about what will happen with oil, whether it goes up or down. They lose money when they are wrong about what will happen with oil, up or down. Blaming speculators for the price of oil is like blaming the recent tornadoes on meteorologists.

That would be a valid comparison, if meteorologists created low pressure zones by talking. Markets are effected by talk.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

That would be a valid comparison, if meteorologists created low pressure zones by talking. Markets are effected by talk.

Markets are affected by beliefs. People can talk all they want but unless people are convinced that talk is right they aren't going to take a financial stake backing that talk. About the only things that will make traders believe oil should be worth less would be a significant increase in the value of the dollar (not going to happen with America's current economic policies), an increase in supply (argued against in the first post), or a decrease in demand (double dip global recession). Oil costs a lot because speculators believe current conditions will drive prices higher, and despite all the whining about speculators I believe they are right.

[fujimoh]

Check out Ron Paul's vote record. He will put hometown pork into to bills he knows are going to pass and then he will vote against them. He gets his turn at the pork barrel and still has a voting record that makes him look like a spending hawk.

Look up his record for yourself, it is there and I am not your secretary