Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
GOP Against Lower Oil, for illegals and US Troop Deaths
firedoglake.com — On Friday Republicans blocked a bill in the Senate meant to give regulators more ability to reign in oil speculation (h/t The Zoo). While there's some dispute how much if any of the price of oil is based on speculation, there's reason to think it could be a lot. And current law means that a lot of oil futures trading is done in such a way that we
looking4aparty- 411 diggs
- digg it
- strafefire, on 07/27/2008, -35/+47So, when speculators bet on stocks and the prices go up, that is good...
When they bet on home prices, that is good...
But when they bet on commodity prices, OH NOES OMFGWTFBBQ!!!
This has probably been the only good thing that the republicans in congress have done right!
Yes, let's stop pass legislation to stop oil speculation. And let this blow up in our face as people begin trading oil futures on exchanges in other countries. Watch the dollar drop as trades run to the Iranian oil bourse and trade oil in EUROS!
Wait, wait, wait....that would drop oil prices...FOR ALL OF EUROPE!!!
Watch the dollar drop like hotcakes. So, please, please, please try to change the rules for trading oil on exchanges. Please, please do it congress, it'd be awesome for you to ***** over the American people more than you guys already have this year...- squinky86, on 07/28/2008, -5/+16Finally! Someone who knows how markets and finance works on digg!
You put everything correctly. I don't understand why someone can put "Ron Paul! Less government!" on a post and watch it rise to the front page, but when the Republicans vote for less government interference, people hate them.
I applaud the republicans in this effort! If they continue to work like this, they have my vote!- austinisi, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5I applaud this particular effort; however, they do not have my vote. They're gonna have to do a lot more (or less, depending on how you look at it) to get my vote.
- austinisi, on 07/28/2008, -3/+6"Blaming speculators for high prices has always seemed to me like blaming the thermometer for how hot it is."
-Russell Roberts
Also, an article defending speculation:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opi ...
^Two opinions from economists. They're just elitist! - Bkaufman, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7You will be instantly dugg down for using logic to make a valid argument.
- k4rm4, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3/agree
anybody that knows anything knows the more regulation you place on the markets the more inefficient they become, they are called free markets for a reason, leave them be.
this is like the SEC banning naked shortsales on FNM and FRE, people will just use options, derivatives and synthetics to profit from their view, they know this, they just didn't want Average Joe to short sell, meanwhile the rest of Wall St. was allowed to use whatever financial instruments they could get their hands on to profit from the tumbling of financial shares.
most of congress and most of the world do not understand the way the markets work, if we ban oil speculation, the speculation will just go Eurex, ICE, etc.
stop BLAMING Wall Street for your financial problems. inflation is a result of the U.S.'s people becoming complacent and not giving a ***** how bad our country has become in the past 100 years. bernanke is only part of the problem, but hes part of a broken system.
the whole subprime mortgages crisis was the result of people being irresponsible with their loans, commercial banks being irreponsible with their lending, and wall street taking advantage of this broken system to make a profit like it always does. yet everyone is saying it was the RICH PEOPLE THAT DID THIS!
sorry, not true, if poor people were put in the place of the mortgage bankers and asset backed financiers they would have done the same thing, it's called making a profit
greed is universal, and if poor people had been on wall street you better imagine they would have been alot more greedy than the already-rich bankers who were there
so plz stfu w/ these diggs about how evil wall street is or how speculation is creating rises in oil prices or how wall street is responsible for the collapse on the entire u.s. housing system when all they were doing was profiting from the bonds that were repackaged by FNM & FRE in sales to investors and vertically integrating themselves like a smart business should
that is all.- theaceoffire, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I agree... one of the main reasons that our nation is suffering from such horrible internet penetration and speed is due to the Gov paying them 200 billion to give it to us by 2006.
We gave them Gov-regulated monopolies and massive money, and they shafted us... should have let free market rule.
- theaceoffire, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I agree... one of the main reasons that our nation is suffering from such horrible internet penetration and speed is due to the Gov paying them 200 billion to give it to us by 2006.
- squinky86, on 07/28/2008, -5/+16Finally! Someone who knows how markets and finance works on digg!
- Berkana, on 07/27/2008, -38/+56The reason the Republicans wouldn't reign in the speculators is that speculators driving up the prices helps them pass bills such as off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR on the backs of our discomfort with high oil prices. Wake up! They're not interested in our relief, they're interested in their cronies profits.
- DeviantDragon, on 07/27/2008, -10/+13Regardless of any validity of your statement, and I may grant you that it probably does have some, I really find it annoying when I'm being told to "wake up." It's become such a trite and cliched statement to use. The only way you could've made it moreso is if you called everyone "sheeple."
- pathouston22, on 07/28/2008, -12/+4You sound like a liberal! I'm sorry.
- theaceoffire, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Does it matter who he/she is?
How about you think about the message instead of stopping at the envelope?
You might find out that the message is still important, even if its wrappings bother you.
- theaceoffire, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Does it matter who he/she is?
- scubajim, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7Let's see Nixon proposed energy independence and so did most presidents since then. (eg Carter etc.) Look how much Congress has done since then. Very little. This issue isn't a Dem or Repub. issue it is a minyanna issue.
- phocis850, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5Did you NOT notice that the last bill that tried to go through congress was denied by the dems? WAKE UP to you.
- thallium205, on 07/27/2008, -16/+43The price of oil has increased because we have been operating on a refinery infrastructure from the 1980's. Saudi Arabia has offered to pay for multiple refineries to lower the prices, provided that someone gets the proper environmental permits (which is nearly impossible to attain).
The oil companies are a completely open book operation that take roughly 8% profit (which is very modest for most companies). They use these profits to invest in new oil derricks and research new locations to drill. If these oil companies did not profit, we truly would have a shortage of gasoline. If you want to know who is really profiteering from oil, it is our own government. For every gallon of gasoline, the federal government taxes 19 cents. This is more profit than what "Big Oil" makes. There has also been talk by the Democratic congress to increase the tax another dime just last week, due to the fact that less people are using gasoline, and they aren't making enough money. Talk about price gouging!- TheMachine1, on 07/28/2008, -6/+2Refining cost or shortage of refining capacity does not expand the price of oil. Building more refineries at best will make a gallon of gas a little closer in price to the BTU equivalent of oil. But it want lower the price of that oil.
- BufordT, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7It may not "expand" the price of oil, but it does increase the price of gasoline. A shortage of the ability to refine oil into gas undoubtedly leads to less supply of refined gasoline.
- hipnerd, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Our refining capacity has not dramatically shrunk. The cost of wholesale oil has skyrocketed. Refining capacity has stayed the same. We could use some extra refining capacity and environmental regs are somewhat to blame, but that's the cause of our immediate crisis.
- scoottie, on 07/28/2008, -3/+12yup environmentalists make it impossible to get new permits to build new refineries
- wafla, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4Us and our damned breathing kids.
Won't someone think of teh lawnmowers? - ChiBull23, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1dugg down for bad grammar and bad joke
- wafla, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4Us and our damned breathing kids.
- TheMachine1, on 07/28/2008, -6/+2Refining cost or shortage of refining capacity does not expand the price of oil. Building more refineries at best will make a gallon of gas a little closer in price to the BTU equivalent of oil. But it want lower the price of that oil.
- paradexes, on 07/27/2008, -23/+12I am hoping that diggers don't generalize republicans on this. I have been meeting alot more republicans that are very against what the GOP leaders are doing. Some even to the point that they say they would be the first to sign any impeachment (some already have) petitions and such. They are not happy with McBush either. Sadly they seem to be drowned in what appears to be a very loud Neo-Con agenda.
The other thing I found is that those same republicans are also net-savvy people who get their news from multiple sources besides the MSM. I have noticed that those that do not use the net for their news, often are just plain ignorant.- Ajajadude, on 07/27/2008, -7/+11Well, they deserve to be lumped in with the rest of them. Why? They're the ones who kept voting in Bush and the rest of the Republicans in Congress who are being a bunch of asshats.
- jlafleur, on 07/28/2008, -2/+0Ajajadude,
I resent your statement. While, yes, I did vote Bush in 2000, I could not bring myself to vote for him in 04 (Wrote in McCain). The fact of the matter is that the Neocons have hijacked this party, and while I drank the coolaid until late '02, I am no longer under that spell. I think there are a great number of my fellow Repubs who think the same way.
- jlafleur, on 07/28/2008, -2/+0Ajajadude,
- paradexes, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1I was dugg down by the liberal equivalent of the GOP "asshats". Or NeoCons. Same thing to me it seems these days. Two extremes that are too closed minded to see anything but what they WANT to see rather than what they NEED to see. It will be the liberal and neocon extremists (that is what you are those of you who cant see the truth) that further divide and destroy this country.
It will also be you who (those same extremists) who will face the consequences when this country faces a civil war, because of your divisive policies and ideologies.
- Ajajadude, on 07/27/2008, -7/+11Well, they deserve to be lumped in with the rest of them. Why? They're the ones who kept voting in Bush and the rest of the Republicans in Congress who are being a bunch of asshats.
- jotate, on 07/28/2008, -16/+33"GOP Against Lower Oil, for illegals and US Troop Deaths"
Seriously? The entire party is against something that just about every citizen is for, is in favor of "Illegals" (in spite of the only reason they've been branded "Illegals" is the fact that the GOP started labeling them that), and is in favor of the military they rely upon for even the most conspiracy ridden theories being generally killed?
Seriously, I can't even read the article with a headline like that. All I can see is my e-rage at your e-xistence.- mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4Yup.
And given the Telecom Amnesty? They're also SOFT ON CRIME!- LordPhilMil, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5Telecom amnesty? Because no Liberal voted on that...I forgot that 100% of all 3 branches of government were republican!
- mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Since the Loyal Bushies have been spying on everyone for SIX YEARS, don't you think they're blackmailing people?
- mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4Yup.
- justinx0r, on 07/28/2008, -14/+45The GOP is the only party that has tried to bring new refineries online, open up coastal drilling, open up ANWR for drilling, open up the massive shale reserves we have for drilling, and have been pro-coal to liquid technologies but they are against lower oil prices? They're the party that's mostly against illegal immigration and does not support amnesty (Bush and McCain aside). The title of this is so off base it isn't even funny.
- mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -7/+4What's the plan for when the oil STILL RUNS OUT?
- LordPhilMil, on 07/28/2008, -0/+9Funny you should ask, because I believe everyone is for Alternative energy. But some of us realize that switching from oil to say solar/wind/hydrogen isn't an overnight process.
- onedeep, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4Switching from oil to an alternative is most definitely not an overnight process. Of course, neither is getting oil out of ANWR, but no one ever mentions that, do they?
I would rather pay $10 a gallon in gas for the next ten years if it meant that at the end of the ten years, every bit of electricity I used - including the power for my car - was from something sustainable. - mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Asserting a belief in alternative energy doesn't answer my simple, direct question: "What's the plan for when the oil STILL RUNS OUT?"
I want to see a timetable. - thebaron2, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2New oil could be to market within 1 year.
The thing that stretches it to 6-7+ years is all of the red tape and ***** that CONGRESS makes the companies go through in order to get the oil to market. If congress really wanted to, we could have significant oil here within a few years, and the first trickle of that flow would begin within 1 year.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp ...
Of course that's not the real issue though. Even beginning the process would lower prices DRAMATICALLY because the futures market (the evil speculators) trade in just that - the FUTURE price of the commodity. If you make it obvious that the future prices will decrease then the futures markets will follow suit.
- rz8472, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1Offshore drilling won't yield a single drop of oil for 10 years and waste billions of dollars on unneeded infrastructure and kickbacks for Exxon-Mobil. Raising the CAFE standards is the best way to get rid of our addiction to oil. On another note, is digg suddenly overrun by right-wingers who don't realize that the calls for drilling is just a gimmick for the oil companies?
- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3"On another note, is digg suddenly overrun by right-wingers who don't realize that the calls for drilling is just a gimmick for the oil companies?"
Actually digg is full of people who don't strictly adhere to a single party line, and can make up their minds for themselves. I think this issue goes across party lines, and maybe that's why even diggers are for it.
As for the "gimmick" oil companies want to sell oil, so if they can get it and make their customers happy because the end product costs less, whats the big deal?
and setting up offshore drilling would only take 5 years, the futures market would reflect this immediately, so gas prices would drop sooner, and stay down longer. - thebaron2, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2It takes that long because of congress' red tape and restrictions. If congress was serious we could have significant oil within a few years, and the flow would begin within 1 year.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp ... - rz8472, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2It won't cost less. ANWR will only yield a half-year's supply of oil by the most optimistic USGS studies, and offshore drilling possibly even less. They're just looking for government contracts, and OPEC will still control the majority of the oil prices. All these contracts would also inevitably be to the detriment to any research going into renewable energy sources.
When you're addicted to something, the solution isn't to look for more drugs.
- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3"On another note, is digg suddenly overrun by right-wingers who don't realize that the calls for drilling is just a gimmick for the oil companies?"
- bitlater, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2I agree the title is off base, but to say the best thing to alleviate our current energy issues is to open up ANWR, coastal, and shale drilling is simply irresponsible and takes no account for the future. The bottom line is that "Big Oil" isn't stupid and the reason they haven't built any new refineries is they know the major oil fields in the middle east are drying up and new refiners would be a bad ROI. It's called peak oil, look into it. Furthermore most experts agree that coal to liquid pollutes so much water that no decent politician would touch it with a ten foot pole. The era of oil and carbon-based energy is over, the sooner people understand this the better.
- mikelieman, on 07/28/2008, -7/+4What's the plan for when the oil STILL RUNS OUT?
- savetheusa1, on 07/28/2008, -13/+2http://digg.com/politics/4_000_US_Combat_Deaths_an ...
- Dibou, on 07/28/2008, -15/+26This post demonstrates what kind of fantasy world liberals like to make for themselves.
If they put Democrats in the title then we might have something. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/28/2008, -10/+10Republicans have vowed to block ALL bills in Congress until the ban on offshore drilling is lifted.
- Rotzooi, on 07/28/2008, -7/+8***** idiots.
- BigW, on 07/28/2008, -6/+4When adequate supply is one of the problems, what exactly is wrong with expanding the supply?????
- LordPhilMil, on 07/28/2008, -8/+6yes, idiots, how dare they try and do what the people want. Thats not why I voted them in there! I voted them in to lie on there backs like your Liberal friends that were going to "reign in spending on the war"
- drlha, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5Adequate supply is not one of the problems, we have plenty of oil. Also how much of a percentage of the total oil production in the world will the off-shore drilling add? Less than 1%? Offshore oil drilling will have ***** all effect on the price of gas.
- thisguy457, on 07/28/2008, -4/+5Funny you should note off-shore drilling as I think there is a misconception about the practice that needs to be cleared up.
There are only 70 deep sea oil rigs in the world and they're all being used.
It doesn't really matter if it's banned or not, we can't drill right now off shore or in the gulf because we don't have the rigs available. That being said, there are another 70 in production that will be available in a couple of years. So, when that happens, we'll be able to start moving on drilling. Until then, no so big of a deal.
- Rotzooi, on 07/28/2008, -7/+8***** idiots.
- Kcaj, on 07/28/2008, -11/+0Speculating is for fags that wear spectacles
- SOS84, on 07/28/2008, -5/+10The Department of Energy estimates that roughly $1.60 per gallon of gas (averaged from all fuel grades) is due to market "turbulence". AKA, the forces that are driving speculation.
- BigW, on 07/28/2008, -4/+5And one of the forces driving that speculation is the United States' reluctance to search out new sources of oil.
The answer to the problem is better control of the speculation market AND opening up new sources!!! - scubajim, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2One of the causes is China buying more gas and diesel fuel in case there was an embargo against them during the Olympics. (not that anyone should do an embargo on China). They don't want anything to go wrong during the Olympics. Their hording will stop once the Olympics starts. Not the cause of all the price increase, just one of many factors.
- BigW, on 07/28/2008, -4/+5And one of the forces driving that speculation is the United States' reluctance to search out new sources of oil.
- Benholtz, on 07/28/2008, -8/+0looks like they cant handle a digg.... OOPS!
"Warning: mysql_affected_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /var/www/firedoglake.com/wp-content/db.php on line 430
No WPMU site defined on this host. If you are the owner of this site, please check Debugging WPMU for further assistance." - 1gunners4, on 07/28/2008, -9/+7Or... you know... some people are simply against regulation of markets. If Congress REALLY wanted to get Oil prices down, they'd stop baiting Iran, cut off funding for this illegal war, and stop catering to every one of Israel's little whims.
- nontoxyc, on 07/28/2008, -15/+13Dumb title dumb article dumb liberals. John McCain for the win.
- catcher6250, on 07/28/2008, -8/+4as the other guy said,
how do you keep managing to spell "end of all hope for America" with "win", truly astonishing - firesphotons, on 07/28/2008, -8/+1Nontoxic you should have chosen non "sense-spewer", we like a lil truth with our reading.
- orangefly, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1is he still trying to win....???....
- catcher6250, on 07/28/2008, -8/+4as the other guy said,
- conpenn, on 07/28/2008, -9/+13There is no truth to any of the article and this digg must be burried. Republicans blocked this because the failure of the leftward Democrats (9% approval rating) have no good reason to refuse to drill. The Dems are now making up whatever kind of BS they want to in order to hault the Republicans from doing what is best for this country. You liberals, trying to fabricate any kind of news, are ruing this country one step at a time.
For once, put your country before yourselves and admit that at the least, drilling is the best answer to begin the trek to energy independence and alternative energy.- wilywondr, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.html
"House Republicans Block Democratic Effort on Oil Leases, Calling the Bill a Sham"
Published: July 18, 2008
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic effort to pressure energy companies into drilling for oil on lands they already leased from the federal government, calling the legislation a sham.....
.....it would bar oil companies from obtaining new leases if they were not actively exploring current holdings. Republicans said companies might be reluctant to bid on new sites they could then lose if they were seen as not moving fast enough.
Democrats said they were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. “Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader.
Democrats say oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they could be exploring.- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2yup that's 68 million acres of land... WITH NO KNOWN OIL UNDER IT.
The oil companies are leasing it to search for new oil but they are not finding any. They are exploring the land, but it takes a long time. Why not drill where we KNOW where the oil is?
- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2yup that's 68 million acres of land... WITH NO KNOWN OIL UNDER IT.
- jwalt1776, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Nail On The Head! conpenn
- wilywondr, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.html
- catcher6250, on 07/28/2008, -4/+2Fantastic!
- abominax, on 07/28/2008, -6/+11"GOP Against Lower Oil, for illegals and US Troop Deaths"
...is anyone actually stupid enough to believe that? - TheInformer, on 07/28/2008, -11/+20Template:
Republicans are vile and EEEEEEEEEvil creatures.
Democrats are good and noble, no matter what the facts are.
Obama can do no wrong. Period. The title "Messiah" is well deserved.
McCain can do no right. Period. He has no redeeming qualities.
Huffingtonpost, Thinkprogress, Dailykos, and Moveon.org are the only true sources of unbiased political information, according to the sheer number of articles of theirs used on Digg.- rheaume, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
- randyzaia, on 07/28/2008, -9/+3Just when you think the collective economic ignorance of Diggers couldn't get any worse, along comes an article railing against "speculation" as the reason for higher oil prices.
If you think the oil companies are getting rich at the expense of "the average American," go buy XOM and STFU- wilywondr, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3XOM 52-Week Change: -4.54%
CVX 52-Week Change: -3.10%
XOM is not making the money, speculators are. Speculators are not XOM. They are companies like Phibro, Gunvor and Glencore. These are among the world's largest oil trading companies, with revenues in the $70-80 billion ranges, arguably the biggest private businesses on earth. They own no refineries, no gas fields, no oil wells, no fleet of supertankers, and no petrol stations.
You should take your own advice and STFU.
- wilywondr, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3XOM 52-Week Change: -4.54%
- Scariot, on 07/28/2008, -5/+11The Democrats have a majority in the Senate. Getting pushed around by the Republicans like this just reinforces the stereotype that they are weak and can't get anything done. The article would be more accurately titled "Democratically controlled senate can't muster a majority of votes within their own party for key vote."
- beesaretasty, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1That "majority" includes Lieberman. Calling them the majority is dubious at best.
Most of them are, however, completely worthless in my eyes (goes for the Republicans too).- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2well if they are not the majority, then they should turn the leadership back over. OH WAIT thats because lieberman caucuses with the Democrats giving them a majority.
"Most of them are, however, completely worthless in my eyes (goes for the Republicans too)." You're in the majority hence the 9% approval rating of congress. - beesaretasty, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1I don't give a ***** who Lieberman caucuses with. Who does he want to be the next president? To count him in the democrat column and therefore say the dems have a majority is misleading. He's fully independent and just as likely to go with the repubs. Calling it a tie and give the tiebreaker to Cheney is more accurate.
So OH WAIT yourself domino.
- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2well if they are not the majority, then they should turn the leadership back over. OH WAIT thats because lieberman caucuses with the Democrats giving them a majority.
- wafla, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Wouldn't you prefer a bunch of senators voting their conscience and representing the will of their people? The multitude of voices is a part of being a Democrat, we know it's a weakness.
On the upside, it's just so much better than all those Republicans with 100% party-line voting. They don't even have to read the bills! It doesn't matter who they are representing -- after all, what could possibly be the difference between Alaskans and Texans?- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Apparently there is no difference.
The governor of Alaska is piratically begging for us to drill up there, it would give the state a much larger income, and Jobs. - wafla, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Let me just briefly mention that there are more factors than just OIL when you look at the relative needs and strengths of widely divided groups of people.
So while Alaskans and Texans -- and also, amazingly, Hawaiians, and some other Americans as well -- need oil, try to also incorporate some non-Republican (read: non-oil) considerations into your reasoning as well.
- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Apparently there is no difference.
- beesaretasty, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1That "majority" includes Lieberman. Calling them the majority is dubious at best.
- nastronomical, on 07/28/2008, -9/+9Words only a ignorant liberal would believe.
- beardo877, on 07/28/2008, -5/+8Nice title. Political pandering like this shows only your ignorance of..., well... life.
- rock774, on 07/28/2008, -8/+9Why is oil at an all time high since the Dems took over ?
- akchrs, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4because the Dems took over.
- berational, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1This ball has been rolling since long before the Dems took over. The bottom line is the US traded all it's wealth to the China and India for cheap plastic crap covered in lead and poison. We have propped up our standard of living printing more money and borrowing our asses off and are getting close to our credit limit.
China and India took our wealth and everyone bought cars and built skyscrapers. Now we have to share our Kool-aid with a much bigger party and our wallet is pretty thin.- domino42, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1But its the issue most Dem's ran and won on in 2006. "We will lower your gas prices" so they wer voted in. Gas went up $2.00/gallon since they were voted in and all they have done is had their annual investigation into gas price gouging. Since the oil companies stood up to them this time, they decided to aim at a more faceless target Oil Speculators.
- scoottie, on 07/28/2008, -7/+1dont forget prada.ru
- wilywondr, on 07/28/2008, -5/+3http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.html
"House Republicans Block Democratic Effort on Oil Leases, Calling the Bill a Sham"
Published: July 18, 2008
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic effort to pressure energy companies into drilling for oil on lands they already leased from the federal government, calling the legislation a sham.....
.....it would bar oil companies from obtaining new leases if they were not actively exploring current holdings. Republicans said companies might be reluctant to bid on new sites they could then lose if they were seen as not moving fast enough.
Democrats said they were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. “Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader.
Democrats say oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they could be exploring. - insanebrain, on 07/28/2008, -8/+1Please, lets organize a big party for aaaaalll the republicans in the USA. A party in 1 place. . so that when they are all there, we need only 1 nuke to throw at them.
- anarcurt, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3The reason why speculators are purchasing more oil contracts is because production capacity is no longer growing as fast as demand (from peak oil, lack of drilling, lack of refining capacity), because the dollar is worth *****, and because all the other asset classes are tanking from the sub-prime morgage and housing bubble bursts. If they put limits on the futures trading it may cause a temporary drop in prices as people shift their assets to ETFs and other pooled money vehicles that will invest in the oil and take delivery. The only way for cheaper oil in the long run is a huge increase in oil discoveries (extremely unlikely) or a fundamental shift in the way we live resulting in a large drop in crude demand.
Thinking that creating curbs on certain types of speculation will result in lower oil is about as stupid as 55MPH or a federal gas tax holiday. They are only ment to give the illusion that your representatives are doing something when in reality there is little that can be done on their end. - DuffyDirect, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1i think you forgot a 'but' after your comma
- Enzo33, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5Check out this link:
http://mises.org/story/3047
it is from the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Mises is the father of Austrian Economics, which is based on "classical liberalism" but not to be confused with the meaning of liberalism in this country. This is an old-school, conservative school that thinks things out logically without political agendas clouding the issues. This, unlike the crappy article I'm reading on digg from firedoglake.com, is credible, makes sense and is everything that people in this country need to listen to - so check it out. - mrmazoo, on 07/28/2008, -5/+5If you believe that speculators are the ones driving up the price of oil, then you are living in a fantasy land.
The price of oil is what it is for the same reason that the price of pretty much ANYTHING is what it is: supply and demand. Once you understand that, you will begin to understand how important it is to begin weening ourselves off oil as soon as possible.
ANWAR and other off-shore oil reserves: Do you realize that if we were to drill for oil in ANWAR, then by the most generous estimates we'd have enough oil to power the US for...wait for it....10 months! Don't believe me? Look it up! It's not hard. It took me 20 minutes to crunch the numbers. And that's at CURRENT levels of demand.
Plus, do you REALLY believe that once they have that oil in hand (in about 10 years!) that they will sell it to US distributors at a discount?? LOL. They are going to sell it on the world market to the highest bidder. Prices will come down a few pennies at most. But the big oil companies will make billions.
Shale oil? Idiots. It takes more energy to produce shale oil than you actually get from the oil that is produced from it. It's a net energy LOSER. Look it up.
We need to IMMEDIATELY put as many resources as possible into sustainable energy production: solar, wind, tidal, etc. Otherwise, we can probably say good-bye to at least half of the current population within 50 years as billions in the 3rd world begin to starve to death while the rest of the world regresses back to a more agricultural society.
Seriously...learn how to farm people. Teach it to your children. Otherwise, quit your job and put your personal resources into sustainable energy. We don't have any time to waste.
But, for Dog's sake, stop being taken in by red herrings like ANWAR and f'n market speculators.
Everything going on in the world is related to Peak Oil. It's right in front of your eyes but you can't see it. The War on Terror (the War on countries that have large oil supplies but are hostile to US interests), the destruction of the US economy, the tearing down of our civil liberties, the price of gas, the housing bubble...it's all inter-related and it all comes down to Peak Oil, which will turn out to be the most important event in history since the Industrial Revolution, if not MORE important.- akchrs, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1It's ANWR.
- mrmazoo, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Thanks.
- tucsonalama, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1"Seriously...learn how to farm people. Teach it to your children. Otherwise, quit your job and put your personal resources into sustainable energy. We don't have any time to waste."
Sweet! I am still laughing.
Thanks for the chuckle.- mrmazoo, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Hope you are right. But what if you are wrong?
Are you willing to bet that "the market" will come up with a solution to the energy crisis?
The stakes are high, my friend.
- mrmazoo, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Hope you are right. But what if you are wrong?
- akchrs, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1It's ANWR.
- skews13, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2when supply is stable, only market forces can drive prices. the current supply of oil is stable, it's our inability to convert it to gasoline fast enough, that's the problem as far as our immediate need for it is. the current drilling talk is based upon not having to import as much oil, but even that wouldn't help if we can't convert it to gasoline. immediate action that would have realistic impact on prices is to actually enforce regulations in place on the commodities market, coupled with more refining capacity. these two things, in conjunction with alternatives coming on line, with better mpg standards on cars, and trucks. this would have a much faster impact on the current position we're in. if the current politicians that are calling for more drilling as a way of limiting foreign supply are serious about it. they will instruct the oil companies to bring wells on line with currently owned leases. that way they might win a lot more favor with those imposing them right now.
- Barackalypse, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6Based on the bang up job the government has done regulating interest rates these last 20 years and all the fun that has caused in the mortgage and banking sectors, I won't ever criticize anyone for not expanding their regulatory power. Good jobs Republicans for standing up to an ever expanding list of federal powers, for once.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5The only way speculators can drive up commodity prices is by hoarding physical quantities of the commodity. This is not happening right now with oil. Simple supply and demand are responsible for the current high prices.
- pell, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1So by your logic a) We've reached peak oil and are *****, or b) Twice as many people use oil this year as they did last year?
I don't see how anyone can really know either way, it's not like any of these companies are telling us anything.- MikeFallopian, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Read up on how "speculation" - aka futures trading - actually works. There is no economic mechanism by which that type of trading can significantly affect the price of a commodity, unless it is accompanied by large-scale hoarding.
- berational, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0What about the Feds buying and stockpiling oil in the strategic oil reserve?
- pell, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1So by your logic a) We've reached peak oil and are *****, or b) Twice as many people use oil this year as they did last year?
- DigitalDIY, on 07/28/2008, -0/+7The title of this post gives you away as the mindless leftist you are. Go live in your socialist utopia and take your slanted BS articles with you.
- toetagger, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4In the past year, oil is up 100% The relationship between supply/demand changed about 2%
- spiderworm, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Digg.com: liberals only, please
- Treoinmypocket, on 07/28/2008, -0/+7Wow - such elegant spin and disinformation it almost sounds believable.
- Firebird2k6, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3I didn't know Republicans were in the majority in Congress.
How the hell did they block it?
Whoever made this headline should be banned for misinformation. - rpfinley, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Democrat senate passed 94% of bills without debate
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Democrat_Senate_ ... - lebaige, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2That is the most ridiculous title for an article submission I've ever seen. Voting against a bill does not mean you are for the opposite!
- ChiliMac, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Burried for lame and biased title
- crackberri, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Wow! The Hufftards are being outdone………
- devophl, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2There is one simple reason oil prices are going up! WE WILL STILL BUY THE STUFF!!!!
This is supply and demand and clearly as oil prices have soared, demand has not come down. It is starting to level off but predictions of demand increasing another 20-30% in the next two years has the speculators all atwitter about riches they can obtain. When oil went from $20-$40//barrel, demand increased 40%. When oil went from $40-$80/barrel, demand went up 20%. When oil went from $80-$120/barrel, demand went up 10%. Its not the price that has so far driven demand, its the amount of cars on the road. Consumption per capita has not gone down until the last 9 months.
What is happening is simple. As long as demand continues to increase, the increase in oil prices are justified. When oil was $40/barrel, everyone thought $60/barrel would lower demand and yet we kept buying gas guzzling SUVs are record rates. We actually started consuming more as the price went up. So why not increase oil to $80/barrel? Well, that is exactly what happened. Then the speculators got on board seeing prices increase 30-40% per year and saw this as a great investment and as long as demand kept going up, then they could easily sell their futures contracts at the overly inflated price.
But now demand is really starting to taper off. First people stop buying discretionary items as they poured more money into the gas tank. This caused the economy to go into recession and now people just can't afford gas at $4/gallon. The futures contractors are starting to find it more difficult to off-load their $140/barrel contracts and we're starting to see a precipitous decline in oil prices.
Maybe the market really works but our greed for oil isn't helping things any!! - kreatre2007, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1What this should have read is "GOP is against government interference in the oil industry". The high gas prices we have today were caused by the government interfering and can only be solved by government getting out of the way and allowing the free market to operate normally. The Democrat party obviously doesn't understand market economics. One interesting thing to point out though is that the Republicans can't really block anything without having some Democrats to help them. So, there must be some Democrats who understand that limiting speculation isn't the answer. This is just more class warfare, demagoguery *****. Drill here! Drill now! PAY LESS!!!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by