Printable View
I can't seem to find this, but listen:
I swear, there was a whole hubbub about cars ...in the year; maybe, like, I want to say 2040???...That the MPG would have to be at least 46, or something to that effect? Was this just political posturing or is it for realz0rz?
O.K., good post.
I've had really bad insomnia and I can't tell if I'm making this shit up or not :(
This shit is for reals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell
It's possible 46 is what the government has mandated, but those rules are largely useless. It's not a minimum PER CAR, it's the average of the entire automaker's fleet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell
So if an automaker has a huge tank of an SUV that gets 10 MPG, and a small car that gets 30 MPG, then their entire fleet average is 20 MPG. Throw in a tiny electric car that no one buys and they can really bump up their fleet average MPG.
The end net result is still a higher MPG requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Possibly, depends if they boost their average with electric vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
But these mandates are misleading because it makes people think they will be able to buy a much more fuel efficient vehicle in a few years, yet in the 50's cars were getting about 15 MPG and nowadays they are getting about 24, that hasn't even doubled in the past 70 years, much less is it going to double in the next 20. The average vehicle MPG has gone up a whopping 5 MPG since the 50's.
Boosting it with Electric vehicles is still a higher gasoline efficient fleet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My bad, I misread your other post as it will result in higher MPG vehicles. You are right, electric vehicles would boost the average MPG of their fleet, but it won't necessarily mean more fuel efficient vehicles, at least not necessarily a huge boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You are aware of how Fleet MPG is calculated right? It makes it very, very hard to hit the goals if you're using low MPG vehicles a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So they can dump their low MPG vehicles from their fleets, create vehicles which use alternative fuels to get an artificial boost to their average, create electric vehicles which get 200+ MPG equivalent, and use credits from prior years where they exceeded the minimum to use towards the future where they don't meet the required minimum, all of which doesn't make cars more fuel efficient. Or car makers can just pay the penalty for not achieving the minimum standard, which some automakers do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Like I said it's a misleading requirement.
The MPG is still based on total miles driven. They'll have to put a LOT more miles on their high MPG vehicles to counterbalance poor performers. That costs money. They'll look at dumping those poor performers. It isn't misleading. It is still calculated total miles driven (of all vehicles) / gasoline consumption = MPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
There are no "credits" mentioned by the NHTSA so I have no idea where you are getting that idea from.
Also, included, automakers are REQUIRED to have every light duty vehicle have at least a 49 MPG average by 2026. That isn't even corporate fleets, that is every single vehicle made in that category.
Something further to note, your example of a giant SUV getting 10 MPG wouldn't be covered, as they are considered heavy duty vehicles. This legislation only targets passenger cars and light trucks, hence, light duty vehicles.
Yes an average, there is no way a car is going to get 49 MPG in a couple of years unless it’s a hybrid or an electric vehicle, cars not everyone can afford nor have the easy means to charge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Assuming you’re referring to the CAFE then yes they can roll over credits from years where they exceeded the minimum to years where they don’t meet the minimum.
All I said is it’s misleading, because it is. People think these regulations means every car sold has to meet these minimums. You’re saying it’s not misleading because you know it refers to fleet averages.
It points to an overall higher efficient fleet. You may say it is misleading, but the end goal is still going to happen. MPG rates have been going up for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
There's many times over more conventional motor vehicles that are more expensive than your standard hybrid or electric. Meanwhile some manufacturers are still eligible for electric vehicle credits, while others would have had more credits available if Republicans weren't so in bed with Big Oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
25k for a Hyundai plug in hybrid. Average 50mpg. Not only is the car incredibly affordable, but the annual gas savings will pay a significant portion of the vehicle.
Sure with Biden doing his best to make gas be as expensive as possible. If he were a normal president who actually cared about his citizens suffering and didn't insist on 4+ dollars per gallon of gas as the "new normal" then no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Except he's doing everything reasonably possible thing he can to lower gas prices in reality, and congressional Republicans and Big Oil are doing their damndest to block or counter everything he tries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Releasing a million barrels per day from SPR
- Oil analysts and commodities brokers shrug it off as not being enough to counteract the loss of Russian oil. Nevermind there isn't an oil shortage.
Biden tries to put pass fuel efficient vehicle credits and expand electric vehicle infrastructure.
-Congressional Republicans block it.
Biden points out there's thousands of unused minerals leases that Big Oil is sitting on and half completed wells not finished due to Big Oil wishing to limit supply to maintain prices.
- Republicans and commodities brokers alike shriek themselves hoarse that the specter of nonexistent oil rules or policies are preventing oil production.
The oil price jump is artificial and its been manipulated higher to benefit the pockets of oil producers and refiners. Who are making outrageously high profits by literally stealing it from everyday Americans.
What exactly is Biden doing to make the gas prices so expensive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Oh come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
I love it.
Democrats: Biden can't do anything to affect the price of gas! He doesn't have that power! It doesn't matter if he closed federal lands to future oil drilling!
Biden: I'm opening up federal land for more oil drilling to help reduce the price of oil.
Democrats: I'm still not seeing it!!!!
Wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
...are you trying to say that Biden isn't trying to drive up gas prices?
But that's not what my favorite alt right hate mongers are saying about him.
Something doesn't add up here.
Ikr. It's almost shocking just how blatantly dishonest those Conservashits and Dreaven when trying to spin reality into supporting their falsehoods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
Willful ignorance is a powerful tool to instill in a mind at a young age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You mean:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Biden: I'm opening up the federal land that I closed on my first day in office to help reduce the price of oil.
Create the problem, then return to normal to say you "solved it". About all Democrats can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Biden - "The economy is booming!" ---- Uhhhh.. you mean people are returning to work after not working for 2 years due to forced Government mandates? type of thinking...
Average national price of gasoline BEFORE the so called “Putin Price Hike”.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOD-RU2VEBIUzCi.jpg
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...lling-and-no-/
Joe Biden 2020 - "Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...ge-2022-04-15/
Joe Biden 2022 - "U.S. to resume oil, gas drilling on public land despite Biden campaign pledge"
Can't tell an industry to go fuck themselves, then expect them to help your shitty poll numbers.
When reality hits morons in the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
https://media3.giphy.com/media/VM01S...1bSF/giphy.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...8N_400x400.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo
Still no self awareness for either of you I see.
You guys never get tired of posting the same misleading information. Gas prices were already trending upwards into Biden's inauguration as a result of the country returning to work, due to gasoline production not meeting demand. They largely moderated, then began to trend lower until Russia began surrounding Ukraine for their invasion. You'd know all this of you read the news, or were even human.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
All of that aside, you Conservative morons trying to convince yourselves as much as the American people that the President had some supernatural way to increase prices? Go back to bed and take your thorazine.
As a result of the country returning to work? WTF? Why weren't they super fucking high before people left work prior to covid? How does any of that shit make sense to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
If you understood how to read a chart, which you clearly don't because you're too stupid, you'll see it still trending down literally until the election, it moved up slightly, moved back down slightly (11/23), and has been rising ever since, all before Biden was inaugurated, and then started really skyrocketing after, and way before any of this Russia shit started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The problem is you're both too stupid to read a chart, and too full of shit to interpret a chart correctly even if you weren't too stupid to read it in the first place.
"bUt It'S pEoPlE gOiNg BaCk To WoRk!!!!!"
https://c.tenor.com/MfKAbleUVdUAAAAM/hola-knock.gif
He's just repeating what someone else told him to think. Because he's stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I’ll give it to you that what you are saying is partially true. Gas prices were already trending upward when Biden took office due to Covid impacts and people returning to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
What you are failing to acknowledge though is Biden’s energy policy as soon as he took office: no offshore drilling, no new federal leases, increased regulation overnight with lengthier times to process, etc. That policy has exasperated the issue of oil companies being unable to keep up with the increased demand. It’s only now has Biden curtailed some of the restrictions, and he fails to take any accountability for his part. Biden’s energy policy (there was an EO for that too) is one factor of many that directly contributed to soaring prices in fuel.
Look at oil production prior to the pandemic, look at oil production not returning to those previous levels while economic factors are booming and demand is up. Then you can answer your own damn question from a position of knowledge, instead of contrived ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Oil Production is higher now than every year prior to 2019. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Pre pandemic monthly offshore oil production was 61,631 thousand barrels per month, two years later oil companies continue to idle production and rates stand at 52,887 thousand barrels per month according to the EIA. New Federal offshore leases being halted as a cause for higher oil prices is a proven lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
13.9 million acres of government owned land is already leased to Big Oil and not being developed or even explored for oil. Despite their already being permitted for such activities. Source: Department of Interior, November 2021 report to the GAO. Again, proving the lack of feral leases or lack of permits being the cause of high oil prices is a lie.
The Keystone XL pipeline being blocked, cited time and time again as a cause for higher oil prices is also a lie. The pipeline would not have been in use until 2023 or later. Existing pipelines already bring Canadian oil to the US and there is no impediment to ongoing oil reaching our country from our northern neighbors. So more lies.
Big oil and it's limiting oil production from current available wells. FACT
Commodities brokers Upplaying Russia's oil being unavailable to some markets and Downplaying coordinated international SPR releases to manipulate oil higher for profit. FACT
American oil production, previously at 13.2 million barrels per day, now at 11.7 million barrels per day being exposed to international oil price volatility due to Republicans and Trump ending federal oil export ban. FACT
US oil production peaked in January 2020, and hadn't recovered to previous levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You could correctly say today's oil production is higher than 1950 levels and it would still be irrelevant as your comparison.
I correctly say that oil production is higher than the year of 2018 and every year that came before it. In fact, we are producing MORE THAN DOUBLE what we did in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Try again.
What major political event happened in January 2020? What was the platform of the candidate who was inaugurated in January 2020? I'll help, it was to attack and shutter the (US) oil industry. Again, i fail to see why you expect them to come save a failing president who campaigned on putting them out of business. All they have to do is continue to let him suck another 6ish months and then when the adults are back running shit, things will improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Big oil is not just intentionally limiting production. This theory that you have that greedy oil companies are intentionally limiting production to keep prices high is simply false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
All companies are greedy in the sense they want to maximize profits. You seem to only be considering production and failing to understand or acknowledge the impact of demand. Oil is the single largest traded commodity on planet earth. So when global demand for oil rises, for prices to remain the same production has to rise at an equally to meet the demand. It would not be in the oil companies best interest to limit their own production when demand is high. While yes that does in fact increase price, they would be losing out on greater potential profits by not having enough quantity to meet the demand. Look at any basic supply & demand graph and you will find optimization in the middle where supply & demand converge. That is what any company wants to achieve for peak performance and maximum profits.
Biden’s energy policies have had a direct and meaningful contribution as to why oil companies are unable to increase their production to keep up with global demand. They absolutely want to, because by not doing so they are leaving profit on the table. This is economics 101.
This is correct. Except for that second 2020 typo, which Seran won't be able to realize on his own because he's too stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Well, President Biden wasn't inaugurated until January 2021 and wasn't even selected as the Democrat primary winner until June of 2020, so his campaign information is irrelevant to oil production falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
However if you'd like to blame the sitting President and ignore all other factors contributing to the reduction of oil production (Covid-19, oil industry ramping down well utilization due to demand destruction) then I'll point out Donald Trump was President in all of 2020.
What we're producing in 2018, 2010, 1950 is irrelevant to comparing peak oil production (13.2 million barrels) to this year's production (11.7 million barrels 01/2022).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I know the Red Team has a fetish with taking irrelevant factoids and using them to slander the current administration, but that doesn't make the information correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
https://c.tenor.com/Tco1BLvO5NQAAAAM...al-athlete.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
13.2M- 11.7M = 1.5 million barrels per day, or 11.3% of oil available in 2020 is unavailable to the US energy market as a sole result of oil industry action or inaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You seem to have a grasp of supply and demand, but a bias against seeing Big Oil culpability. In January 2020, $61 was the price of oil per barrel, while today it is $109 per barrel.
13,200,000 * 61 = $805.2M
11,700,000 * 109 = $1,275.3M
Big oil is seeing a profit of $470M per month at those figures, have said in investor calls they are focusing on maintaining oil prices, more than 100 polled by the Federal Reserve indicated investor payouts, not government regulation is the cause of not increasing production. But you're still stuck on it being President Biden's energy policies are at a fault.
In case that is too much text. Oil companies are making a shit load of money and will continue making a shit load of money by withholding oil.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...lling-and-no-/
Joe Biden 2020 - "Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...ge-2022-04-15/
Joe Biden 2022 - "U.S. to resume oil, gas drilling on public land despite Biden campaign pledge"
Can't tell an industry to go fuck themselves, then expect them to help your shitty poll numbers.
At least you're willing to front the theory that curtailing oil production is political retribution by the Oil Industry. I've not heard that before, but it sounds plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaps
It is 100% relevant when you are saying lack of production is why prices are higher. We are producing more oil than we did in 2018, and gas prices were a lot better then. I can't believe I had to create this link for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Stop lying. You're not surprised, and you can totally believe that you had to create that link for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Reported for being a liarface.
It must be nice to so casually reject logic and arbitrarily choose irrelevant data for forming comparison. I bet the analysts at Lehman Bros were telling themselves the same thing about their subprogram mortgage derivative vehicles, you know, until the economy imploded as a result of the same shady dealings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Reject logic? Your entire argument is that gas prices are high because production is low. Production is higher now than in 2018 and any year before, but the prices are higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You would know, given this thread you created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Holy fucking zero self awareness.
How? HOW ARE YOU ALWAYS THE DUMBEST PERSON TO POST IN A THREAD when we have people like Backlash, time4fun, Bhaalizmo and whoever MacGuyver is posting as that day?
Like mathematically, that's next to impossible.
You literally created a thread, proposing that the reason oil prices are high is because US oil producers are producing less... but that's factually incorrect... so you keep going with the stupidty?
Like how?
Uh huh and what about when supplies were higher and prices much lower just months after your claimed miracle year. I'm sure that's not relevant at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
We also export almost 100x the amount of oil than we did in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Yes, but Sedan is constantly saying production (lack of) is why prices are high. This isn't the case and he has chosen this hill to die on.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
You must not read economic news at all, or oil company press releases, because tight oil supply is 95% of the reason gasoline prices are high. People like you peak out of your little partisan bubbles and start screaming about Biden's presidential price dial. Stop being wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
http://badbooksgoodtimes.com/wp-cont...reness-gif.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Press releases? Economic news? I am looking at pure data showing increased production compared to every year prior to 2018 and higher gas prices now. You blame it on production, but there IS more production, so that isn't the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Try again.
Is this where Seran is going to claim again that he never blamed it on production?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
That's even worse, because you're ignoring the fact production spiked before the pandemic and hasn't risen to pre pandemic levels. You arbitrarily picked a date in 2018, ignoring the fact that 2018 production levels were far outpaced since then. You're such a cuckQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I picked 2018 because it was extremely recent and we produce more oil than then. Do you really believe we have a lot more cars on the road compared to only 4 years ago? Do you really believe we are using way more oil than in 2018? Again, Oil Production is NOT the reason for higher prices. You can blame the Oil companies for charging more, sure. That'd be good. It isn't due to production though and stop pretending it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also, do you even know wtf cuck means or are you just throwing out insults in ignorance? Because I can assure you, the only person fucking my wife is me.
Seran throws out a great deal of things in ignorance.. why not insults?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Seran doesn't know what anything means in any context. He literally just repeats words that he hears from somewhere else while having no idea what any of it means, and then thinks he's really getting over on someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Hey Seran, what was the price of oil in 2018, when we were producing less oil than we are now?
Not only are there more cars, higher worldwide demand, but domestic oil production was once reserved for American use by export bans. Now we have to compete on a worldwide market for what's extracted on government lands. Only corporations benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
It's pretty amusing that you think there are fewer cars and less people in 2022 consuming oil than there was in 2018. It's almost as amusing as your spinning irrelevant and outdated production numbers to try and shore up a faulty argument.
He didn't say there weren't more cars........... He said "Do you really believe we have a lot more cars on the road compared to 4 years ago?" And by a lot he means as a % compared to what was on the road 4 years ago, not saying there are 1million more cars on the road and that's a lot! When there was 100mil+ And this is just an example, not real numbers, although I am sure you will misconstrue that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Confirmation #814726957389 that Seran doesn't know how to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
1998: 273,602,100 Cars on the road in the USQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
2020: 275,944,440 Cars on the road in the US
Stop picking on the retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Seran knows how to read words... it's the formation of thought he has issues with.
I hope you apologize.
The way you guys just bash on Seran (sadly, it is entertaining) - now as I read his posts I only hear this voice in my head from Beaky Buzzard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVOKyVSgJF4
That's funny.. because that is literally the way Seran speaks in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by drumpel
He's our special little fella.
So nice of you to parse that statement Mr Helper. For passager vehicles, the number of registered vehicles on the road increased by 4% between 2018 and 2021. 3.7% is the specific increase of pickups, vans, sports utility, commercial trucks or other medium/heavy vehicles. So yes, there are more vehicles on the road, we can quibble over what constitutes a lot. But demand is up, production is down. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
But oil production isn't down, no matter how often you claim it was.. no matter how many threads you make titled "US Oil Producers Fail To Produce"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Also, do you have a source for 4% increase in vehicles? In 2018, there were 273,602,100 on the road. In 2 years, that number climbed 2.3 million cars. And you are saying that in 1 year (from 2020 to 2021) the number of cars grew by it's largest number ever: 8.6 million cars... during a pandemic and supply issues?
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...rporate-greed/Quote:
Oil prices are dropping, so why aren’t gas prices? Corporate greed
Last Monday, U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil prices briefly dipped down to $94 a barrel, marking its lowest level since late February. The last time a barrel of oil cost that much, the national average for a gallon of regular was just over $3.50. Yet today it remains as high as $5 in some states.
When the cost of oil spikes, gasoline prices skyrocket. So why is it that when oil prices decrease rapidly, the price at the pump has barely dropped? Greed. Greed from the Big Oil corporations, who are unfairly driving up the costs on hardworking American families.
Production is higher than it was in 2018, so no, it isn't down compared to then. Stop being obtuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
That's nice sweetie. Production still has not recovered from a production high of 13.2 million barrels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Well don't you worry about it... President Biden saw the error of his ways and has opened the leases up for sale after stopping them on his first day in office. Jen Psycho even claimed that next year, oil production in the US will reach record levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
So, the administration finally is starting to see that their policies have had a detrimental effect on the country and are now starting to correct them back.
Hopefully, the Easter Bunny won't step in and stop him from doing the right thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWuxQZKSDGE&ab_channel=BreitbartNews
You are purposely dodging the entire point. Production is still higher than 2018 and every year prior, yet prices are ridiculously higher. Again, it is not a production issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
This is way more coherent than an average Seran post.Quote:
Originally Posted by drumpel
https://c.tenor.com/7ocGyMR18AUAAAAC...redemption.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Pot, kettle, black.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
That isn’t even the proper use of that. Are you an especially stupid AI?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Seran being an AI bot would really explain a lot of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
More of our strategic resources are being shipped overseas than ever before, thanks to the Republicans and Donald Trump who ended a decades long crude oil export ban. Republicans are screaming their heads off blaming President Biden for the energy crisis they engineered with their move. Next time you're overpaying at the pump or grocery store register, remember how fucked over you were by the GOP and Big Oil.
Quote:
U.S. Energy Exports Enjoy Record Week Amid Ukraine Crisis
The U.S. exported the most oil and petroleum products in history last week as countries across the world continue to work to replace Russian supplies in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The United States’ crude and petroleum exports surged to an all-time weekly high of 10.6 million b/d during the week ending April 15, with the country’s exports outweighing its imports by the most ever in government data going back to 1990.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...ne-Crisis.html
Seran: How DARE Republicans want to sell our resources to help enrich our country and help our allies in Europe! It's much better to just keep our resources in the ground forever where it helps no one!!!111!!
Would it be called "Artificial Intelligence" in Seran's case though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
https://c.tenor.com/KTZwSvZERaMAAAAC...n-bell-nah.gif
By enriching our country, you're referring to Big Oil who pays 14% in mineral royalties (sometimes) and an effective tax rate less than 17%? Nah, the oil industry is making bank on the blood, sweat and tears of Americans and donating plenty of money to the GOP in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
ANI: Artificial Non-IntelligenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
No. It would be called Extreme Stupidity In Real Time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Remember how we were energy independent under Trump, and now we're not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I know you're incapable of putting 2+2 together, but just try anyway.
You certainly have been crying a great deal over oil companies.. but that's not how they make bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
And I doubt you shed any blood or sweat from work either.
As far as political donations go... why would a company give to the party that has been saying they want to either take them over or put them out of business for over 50 years?
ESIRT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I'm certain you can do better than that.
Try again.
Seran is your typical low-IQ voter who doesn't understand a single thing about how an economy works.
"But...but we're enriching the oil companies!!!11111" We are enriching our country as a whole when we produce and sell shit. That's how an economy works.
The "big evil oil companies" PAY Americans to extract that oil, then they PAY Americans to ship it all over the country, then oil refineries PAY Americans to refine the oil. All of those paychecks enrich AMERICANS, who then go on to spend that money in other sectors of the economy such as food, entertainment, telecommunication services, automobiles, etc. That money spent is then paid to other employees who go on to spend that money in other sectors of the economy. Even the money that isn't spent (you know paid to those evil execs) is invested into the economy in the form of stocks or bank accounts, which is then used to further build up the economy.
That's how a fucking economy works. The oil industry isn't just made up of a board of directors who stuff all of their cash under a mattress, you fucking tool.
On the plus side, Republicans can use their own ineptitude to sell how capitalism is great at.. lining the pockets of the wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I could. But it's Seran, so why bother?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And right on fucking cue again. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If there's one thing Seran isn't a complete failure at, it's the perfect timing of his fails, despite being by accident 100% of the time.
On the plus side, Republicans can sell capitalism much easier than the Democrats can sell socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
parkbandit do you actually think the majority(or really, any) of democrats are for socialism
I believe the Democrat party is very pro-socialism... they just know that it won't play well to Americans so they pretend they are not for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyb
But a large part of their extremist base (which they have been catering to for 10+ years) is very pro-socialism.
You have to remember that to the Republicans in general, anything that isn't destroying the middle class, turning the poor into paycheck dependent serfs or abolishing taxes for corporations and exclusively the ultra wealthy is socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyb
There's that projection again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
There's that denial again. Remind me again, which party supports fair wages, overtime laws, work place safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Remind me again, which party was against Civil Rights and Woman's Suffrage.. and started the KKK and Jim Crow Laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Republicans!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://media3.giphy.com/media/3oz8x...VFtu/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Funny how those Dixiecrats broke away from the Progressive Democrats due to their support of suffrage, desegregation, and unity. You know, until they collectively became the current Republican party.
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, leaders of entitlements that saved our working class poor.
No, they extended the great depression, enslaved the poor to the government economically and created the conditions to drag the economy, drive inflation, created the insane medical inflation and the foundations of the modern welfare/debt system crippling our economy today. But hey, that doesn't fit your victim narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
As to the Southern Dixiecrats, well, here you go, again, you are full of shit.
https://youtu.be/UiprVX4os2Y
And here is more
https://youtu.be/ol7OMGBDMao
I will wait for your to dismiss these highly educated, well respected and very well documented people and arguments because you likely won't watch them and don't know any facts and it doesn't fit your narrative.
That's my favorite story.. how magically the parties switched, which magically "saves" you from having to admit your racist / sexist "past" that never went away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Unfortunately for you.. it's just a story created by your side to make you sleep easier at night.
At a cost of 6 dollars per month, the welfare system is not crippling our economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
What's crippling our economy is pretending that we have capitalism and bailing out banks every time the downside of capitalism kicks in.
What's crippling our economy is an interest rate under 1% when inflation is at 8.5%. It's not like those damn poor people have a say in interest rate adjustments.
Propping up your home value with low interest rates is what's causing these problems. (home loans should be at 12.5 -15.5% right now)
I get you have no idea, but you can't get a mortgage with a 1% interest right now, nor have you ever been able to. It's currently between 4.5-6% with decent credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
And yes.. let's boost those mortgage rates up to 15%... we haven't seen those rates since Jimmy Carter.
Yes... let's make it even more prohibitively expensive for people to buy homes.. that will fix inflation!
Entitlements are 3/5ths of the Federal Budget dumbass. That is far more than 6 dollars a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
According to Justfacts.com the current debt is about $91,406 per person.
Now, before you go off on a whine about "But wars and military spending and WHAAAHHHHHHH!" The Defense budget is about 1/6th of the Federal Budget.
Both of those numbers have remained pretty constant over the years so of that $91406 only $15234 is for defense spending. If that is all we had and we didn't have the entitlements (not things that are real responsibilities of government but added because of the feels, we would be in great shape financially. All those numbers are just on current debt, when you add in the unfunded mandates for entitlement spending, the debt per person goes to something around $507376 so please, fuck off with your $6 a month bullshit.
https://www.usdebtclock.org
BTW, the banks paid back the bailouts in around a year so that money came back tot he government. Even GM paid back the debt finally. Know who didn't get paid, all the material debtors that GM owed money to and that Obama's justice department violated bankruptcy laws in order to screw over while paying off the auto union. All the poor people that got screwed by cash for clunkers handouts.
Learn some real economics, this post is almost as bad as Seran and time4hydranencephaly.
Glad I got my re-fi done at 3%. In another 12 months, my mortgage payment will look like a grocery bill today in comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Quote:
The average taxpayer contributed just $80 in 2017 to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, better known as welfare.Mar 28, 2018
Do you know how banks were able to pay that back?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
They were given billions of US taxpayer dollars, at a near 0% interest rate and turned that money over at 5-6%.
With a 200,000 mortgage, you are costing the taxpayer $20,000 annually.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Tell me you are OK with welfare without telling me you're OK with welfare.
You're dumber than I ever thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
P.S. Home loans were still at 14% at the end of Reagans first term.
The wife and I got our mortgage at 3% on our new house we moved into November 1st last year. I hear the rates are closing in on 6% right now. We put down 20% and with what we borrowed at 3%, if it was 6% that would be almost an extra $600 a month we'd have to be paying....that's just fucking crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
So glad we got in when we did.
I said this:
And you said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Granted, you think of 15 and 14 as the same number because they are over 10 and you only have 10 fingers.. but they are not the same number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Also, do you believe the President sets the mortgage rate? Like you know that it took Reagan a few years to turn the economy around which in turn drives down mortgage rates. He didn't just come into office and drop it from 15% to 10% the day he was inaugurated. He had to put policies in place to fix the damage Carter did to the economy.
Yea, we won't see 3% mortgage rates again probably. Grats on locking that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by drumpel
I would ask you for the math on this... but we both know you aren't good at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
But just tell us how Rocktar's 200K mortgage is costing the taxpayers 20K annually. Be specific please.
You should stick to making "drama" threads like this: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...ama-you-got-it
instead of diving into stuff you know absolutely nothing about, like economics, politics and being successful.
With mortgage rates spiking once in a generation rates, and housing prices causing huge property tax increases nationwide Democrats are going to have a heyday pointing out how Trump's tax plan hurt everyday Americans. State and Local Tax deduction caps means your combination of property tax and local income taxes are meaningless after $10,000. Before Trump's corporate welfare tax plan, the combination of SALT and mortgage interest deductions, combined with the personal exemption saw a lot more Americans getting refunds back. In the guide of 'simplifying tax filings' and doubling the standard deduction, eliminating the personal exemption, SALT deductions etc., Trump just made it so a married, childless couple would help finance his corporate and capital gains tax breaks. Great job GOP!
As much as the United States may think that a worldwide embargo on Russian oil would be ideal, the reality that so much being pumped into China and India at a huge discount will have a significant downward impact on worldwide prices. Simply put, the Russian oil has to go somewhere and Ukraine has already been successful in protecting the majority of it's country, while the ungovernable areas they could take back between 2014-2021 will stay just where they are: in someone else's control.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...ssian-Oil.htmlQuote:
India’s Reliance Snaps Up 15 Million Barrels Of Cheap Russian Oil
Indian private conglomerate Reliance Industries has purchased at least 15 million barrels of discounted Russian crude since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Reuters reported on Friday, citing trade sources and tanker data, as Indian refiners take advantage of record discounts for Russia’s crude shunned in the West.
Reliance Industries—which owns the biggest refinery in India and the biggest refining hub in the world, Jamnagar—has bought on average 5 million barrels of Russian crude for delivery in each month between April and June, according to Reuters’ sources.
Reliance Industries is buying Urals—whose primary destination before the war was Europe—and is set to receive its first shipment of the ESPO crude, which is typically delivered to China, per Refinitiv tanker data cited by Reuters.
Since the beginning of the Russian war in Ukraine, India—a price-sensitive crude buyer who has criticized OPEC and OPEC+ for keeping oil prices “artificially high”—has increased its purchases of Russian crude. Before the war, Indian refiners rarely bought oil from Russia at such a scale because of high freight costs. Now the cheaper Russian barrels—with the flagship Urals grade being offered at a massive $30 a barrel discount to Dated Brent—appear irresistible for Indian refiners, despite warnings from the United States that buying Putin’s oil is not in the best interest of India.
Tell us you know nothing about economics, taxes, politics and any other topic.. without telling us you know nothing about economics, taxes, politics and any other topic..Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
So them doing business as usual gives you a case of asshurt. Got it. How the fuck do you think banks work dumbass? Do you whine when a business takes out a loan from a bank at 5%, earns 10+% ROI and pays back their loan? They used short term credit to continue operation, then paid the loan back with interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
How do you figure that? I got to hear this because I have a standard consumer loan, paid 5% down when I bought 3 1/2 years ago, did a standard 30 yr fixed then and had PMI. Now, due to appreciation and upgrades, my home gained 43% in value combined with an adult credit score and stable employment, I refinanced at 3% with no PMI and paid 2 points. So, explain how I cost anyone anything when I am paying market rate on the money? This has to be good, either for financial education or a solid belly laugh. I am betting the latter.Quote:
With a 200,000 mortgage, you are costing the taxpayer $20,000 annually.
Tell me you are OK with welfare without telling me you're OK with welfare.
Here, show me how much you understand economics and the law yourself by refuting published studies over the failure of the Trump tax plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
https://budget.house.gov/publication...-fiscal-future
https://itep.org/trumptaxprelim/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi...nding-economy/
https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/w...-and-jobs-act/
https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/714080.pdf
After 4 years... and your own meltdown over the Presidency of Trump.. would it surprise you that there are "studies" out there that would disparage a policy that benefited millions that bothered the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Remember the time the Nobel Prize Economist claimed that if Trump was elected President, that it would cause the stock market to crash?
Yea... you live in an eco-chamber of MSNBC, CNN and mass media that claimed everything President Trump did harmed the country... but for normal people, that's just not the case.
are you serious. dinesh d'souza? pragerU? there isn't a big enough lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
parkbandit what is socialismQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
parkbandit what are your non echo chamber media sourcesQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Who is directly responsible for our present out of control inflation (still transitory right?…lolz) through unprecedented wasteful government spending / money printing, and as consequence we are seeing “once in a generation” mortgage rates? Oh yeah…it was those donkey asses. The American public is going to have their heyday come November, and everyone knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Not sure I can dumb it down enough for someone with a 3rd grade intellectual level to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyb
Sorry :(
I get my news from a wide variety of sources.. like CNN/FOX/CBS/NBC and then figure the actual truth lies somewhere between Fox and the other ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyb
For kicks though, I enjoy watching MSNBC during elections that I know they will be upset about. 2016 was my favorite.
This is on par with alt-leftists like Seran blaming the "Defund police" on Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You would have to have major brain damage to believe it.
As expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyb
Trump and the Republicans are responsible for out of control deficits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
No one is directly responsible for inflation, though Big Oil and oil speculation by unregulated traders causing oil prices to soar has a large hand in it.
The mortgage rate increases... Have you taken a step back and seen how 30 year fixed rates have gone from 2.5-3.0% to over 5% just from a quarter point increase by the Feds? Tell me how you think that makes sense.
Lets see, they bend the truth by saying one Democrat switched to Republican after the civil rights act.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...0%E2%80%931969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Pickering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Faircloth_Blitch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Pickering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert...na_politician)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Louis_Dickinson
Probably more. Crazy how so many switched in 1964... Almost like something happened around there...
https://i.ibb.co/p0X1nCq/psych.webpQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Citing Wikipedia as a real source. Yeah, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
So those people didn't switch parties in 1964, is that your assertion? Wikipedia is good for straight number facts, not as much for things with nuance. Notice how I didn't link a wikipedia article about why they switched, just that they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Funny how you're all like, "You're just not going to believe my sources!" but yet your first instinct is to say "I don't believe your sources".
And LOL at your these highly educated people comment earlier, I'll give you the Lady is highly educated in political science, that doesn't make her a history major. Dinesh...he's just a college graduate... Come on... He could have majored in english lit for all we know.
That is sort of the thing for those particular group of trolls. Refute an article, demand sources, provide sources, deny sources. The good news is, other than the four in that troubled little group, there are plenty of folks who understand reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
You are not one of them so stop pretending you have a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
So, did you really listen to her video? Did you listen to the sources and scope of argument? No. Again, citing Wikipedia in an attempt to refute anything is bad. Displaying your ignorant elitism by dissing on a bachelors' degree of someone that has read hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject and who, in the face of many conflicts with academics over his assertions continues to prove and support them effectively again and again is just stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
Want to make any more ad homonym attacks on the sources or try to argue to authority more with unsupported sources outside of the scope of discussion?
You are simply wrong and trying to attack the source and use unrelated information from deeply biased opinion sources does not make you right.
Democrats and Republicans didn't switch sides, the Democrats went father Left into deep Left field and the crazy zone and the Republicans moved into the somewhat more center void. Simple as that and the rest is publicity and media fantasy to try and cover for the Democrat party's adoption of previously radical and destructive policies and positions as well as their history and ongoing racism.
This reads as, "Nnnngh, my sources are more credible than yours because they support my inane argument and yours prove me wrong."Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
You do the same thing so it evens out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Bend the truth? You literally linked 7 people out of 535 members of Congress. You believe that the entire Republican Party became the Democrat Party and vica versa because 1% of the members switched parties, leaving 99% of them in the same party. How do you work out the math in your head to make this dramatic "party switch" actually match reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
But let's look at your 7 examples:
Was never elected to Congress. He tried in 1978, but was not nominated.
Was not in Congress during the magical party switch in 1964. She left in 1962. So while she was in Congress, she was always a Democrat.
No matter how many times you link the same guy.. he was never in Congress.
YOU NAILED IT! HERE IS ACTUALLY ONE PERSON FROM CONGRESS THAT MEETS YOUR MAGICAL PARTY SWITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well done!
I'm going to even give this one to you. The Wikipedia page is rather confusing, but it looks like he supported Goldwater for President and was stripped of his power by the Democrats in his state, so he was forced to go Republican.
He was elected in 1964 as a Republican. He was elected as a Judge in 1956 as a Democrat (do Judges have party affiliations today?) and left the bench in 1958 and went into private business before running for Congress.
So, in Congress, he was always a Republican.
Crazy that there are still some special people that believe that if 2 people out of 535 in Congress switched parties, then there is a magical "everyone switched parties"Quote:
Probably more. Crazy how so many switched in 1964... Almost like something happened around there...
Who knew that .4 % of the members of Congress had this much power.... almost like something happened in 1964 that one party is embarrassed about (and rightfully should be) and will make up any bullshit to cleanse their history of racism and sexism.
You: They didn't switch sidesQuote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Me: Here are a bunch of Dixiecrats that switched sides
You: Like I said no one switched sides
Ok, guy.
I am literally showing you all the Dixiecrats that switched to the Republican party right after the Civil Rights Act was introduced, but you just keep living the lie.
Also Rocktard:
https://i.imgur.com/h8kAbTB.png
Whatever makes you feel good being wrong dude. Facts are facts and PB put more time into it than you are worth to point out piece by piece how you are utterly and totally wrong. Have a nice evening, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
You are better than this, the "South" is like less than 100 representatives or at least right around there. Here are some more for you though. So that takes the % to more like 10-15%. Crazy how that's higher than your % when you actually look at actual numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
John Tower left the Democrats in the early 1950s and won election as the first GOP senator in the modern South. Tower spoke out against civil rights, joined with S. Dems to plot filibusters, and voted against the Civil Rights Act & Voting Rights Act.
Rep. William C. Cramer, the first GOP rep in Florida, for instance, switched from the Democrats in 1949, won election in 1954, urged Ike to withdraw troops from Little Rock in 1957 and voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Rep. Edward Gurney, the second GOP representative in Florida, also abandoned the Democratic Party in the early 1960s, ran for Congress as a Republican in 1962 and won, and then voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Rep. Dave Treen (R-LA) -- protege of legendary segregationist Leander Perez and a 1960 elector for the States Rights Party (a.k.a. "the Dixiecrats") -- switched to the GOP in 1962. He lost a few early races, but then won his seat in 1973 and later became governor in 1980.
Rep. Iris Faircloth Blitch, a segregationist who represented Georgia in Congress as a Democrat from 1955-1962, left the party over civil rights in 1964 and campaigned for Barry Goldwater.
Rep. James D. Martin (R-AL), originally a Democrat, joined the GOP in 1962 & won a House race in 1964. During the Selma protests, he denounced MLK Jr. as a "rabble-rouser who has put on the sheep's clothing of non-violence while he pits race against race, man against law."
Rep. Bill Dickinson (R-AL), originally elected as a Democratic judge, likewise switched to the GOP and made headlines during the Selma-to-Montgomery march. He insisted, from the House floor, that the civil rights marchers were actually a radical group engaged in wild orgies.
Rep. Bo Callaway (R-GA) likewise abandoned the Democrats over civil rights and won a spot as the first Republican congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction. A staunch segregationist, he promised to repeal the Civil Rights Act & then voted against the Voting Rights Act.
Rep. Watson resigned from Congress in 1965 (after voting against the VRA), became a Republican, and retook his old seat in a special election. After he won, he called for investigations into "subversive" civil rights groups.
Thad Cochran -- a lifelong Democrat -- switched to the GOP in 1964 in opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He then went on to head Nixon's Mississippi campaign and then win elections as a congressman and then senator.
Rep. Trent Lott had been an aide to Dixiecrat William Colmer, who stayed a Dem because seniority made him the head of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Colmer chose Lott to succeed him in 1972, but had him run as a Republican.
Jesse Helms grew up a Dem, helping Democrat Willis Smith run a race-baiting campaign for a senate seat in 1950. When Helms ran for the Senate on his own in 1972 the former Dem ran as a Republican.
People who switched but didn't win:
Taylor O'Hearn in Louisiana
W.D. Workman in South Carolina
Marshall Parker in South Carolina
In Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mills Godwin, an outspoken leader of the state's Democratic segregationist resistance, switched parties and won re-election as a Republican in 1973.
Some State Legislature switches:
SC Rep. Arthur Ravenel Jr.
SC Rep. Floyd Spence
Texas Rep. Jack Cox
Mississippi Sen. Stanford Morse
Alabama Rep. Albert Goldthwaite
Louisiana Rep. Roderick Miller
South Carolina Sen. Marshall Parker
1968, five of the top officeholders in Georgia switched from the Democrats to the Republicans
I'll see your youtube video and raise you a twitter thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/stat...86257109508096
You: THE PARTIES SWITCHED! HERE ARE 7 EXAMPLES!Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
Me: You posted one twice, and 4 of them were either not in the US Congress or were there as the same party.
You: BUT THE PARTIES SWITCHED!!! I JUST POSTED 7 EXAMPLES!
Me: Even if you use all "7" "examples", you are still basing your entire premise on 1% of the population of Congress to support your argument.
You: YOU CLAIMED NO ONE SWITCHED SIDES!!
Me: What? Show me where I said no one switched sides. You said the entire Republican Party and the Democrat Party switched sides and you are basing that on 1 or 2 guys.
You: THE PARTIES SWITCHED! YOU ARE LIVING A LIE! I AM RIGHT!
So, you want to move from a controlled 535 total population (US Congress in 1964) to any elected official, local, state or federal? You couldn't even produce a 1% number.... if we're talking about total number of elected politicians in the US in 1964.. we're probably looking around a 500,000 in the group. I'll even give you all the "7" you posted earlier.... knock yourself out... now you are down to .0014%Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
And you think somehow this will make your argument better?
Bro........ I completely understand why you want this to be true. Hell, if I was voting for the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, anti-civil rights and anti-woman suffrage... I would want to come up with an excuse to whitewash (OMGOMGOMG) the history as well.
The first 13 are people in Congress. I added people from other parts of government for emphasis because you would have to be retarded to think it only happened in Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Bro........ I completely understand why you want this to be true. Hell, if I was voting for the party turned into supporters of the KKK and anti-civil rights... I would want to come up with an excuse to whitewash (OMGOMGOMG) the history as well.
So, do I really need to go through the 13 links you provided to show you how bad you are at this again? The first time you were 2 of 7... that's not a passing grade in any school, plus it took my valuable time to just make you look stupid... and to be fair, I didn't get as much pleasure out of it as I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
Sticking to Congress was your best bet to make your fantasy into reality. 500,000 elected politicians in the US around 1964 (I'm making that number up... but I'm certain it's extremely high) made you look even dumber.Quote:
I added people from other parts of government for emphasis because you would have to be retarded to think it only happened in Congress.
You should stick to this... especially when facts and math point out how dumb you are.Quote:
Bro........ I completely understand why you want this to be true. Hell, if I was voting for the party turned into supporters of the KKK and anti-civil rights... I would want to come up with an excuse to whitewash (OMGOMGOMG) the history as well.
Oh hey, oil has crashed 5% at opening this morning on news about Libya ramping up production and China's demand dropping 1.5m barrels per day. Let's hope that holds out.
You're again being disingenuous by says that all public offices across the US are the same as offices in the south specifically. You know the thing we are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Just keep your blinders on, I won't try to stop you anymore.
The premise of Democrats switching parties to Republican because of civil rights doesn't even begin to make sense. As a percentage more Republicans voted for the civil rights act than Democrats, so why would Democrats be like "I'm gonna show them Democrats for voting for the civil rights act by joining the party who was even more in favor of it!"
Also your argument instantly falls apart (which is probably why you don't even bother to mention it) when you include all of the racist Democrats who remained racist Democrats and continued to win elections, such as Robert Byrd who died a racist Democrat in 2010 while still holding office.
This is funny. Even though Democrats drafted Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a majority of Democrats voted for the Act, and a Democrat President signed it into law, Dreaven would like you to believe it was a wholly Republican endeavor. Nice spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And you are being just plain stupid by suggesting that less than 1% of a party moved from Democrat to Republican which PROVES that the parties switched in 1964.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
And I'm being very, very generous with the 1%.
And it literally makes zero sense, pointed out by tgo01.... why would racist Democrats suddenly join the party WHO WAS FUCKING SUPPORTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT in some crazy act of defiance against the racist party they were already in?
This isn't the first time you fell for illogical bullshit the Democrats were feeding you.... at some point you have to own that you are easily manipulated by your party and just be ok with it.
Civil Rights culturally appropriated by Republicans, fantastic. Too bad it's all recent enough voting records for the Civil Rights Act itself to prove this was a Democrat achievement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Yeah...they didn't just flip a switch and change parties it happened gradually. It's almost like a Democrat signed particular act into law. None of the other democrats got the sweetheart deal that Strom got, where he got to keep his position on committee, so they stuck it out for their positions of power but their successors almost always went Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's just a coincidence that the south started turning Republican after 1964?
This isn't the first time you fell for illogical bullshit the Republicans were feeding you.... at some point you have to own that you are easily manipulated by your party and just be ok with it.
The Georgia state House and state Senate were firmly in the hands of Democrats until 2003 when Republicans narrowly took control of the Senate while Democrats remained in control of the House. Republicans took control of both chambers in 2005. But don't let facts stand in your way!Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
You're crediting an event in 1964 for what happened in Georgia a full 4 decades later. Might as well say sending Americans to the moon is to blame for Georgia turning red!
Well, if you are using less than 1% of the Congressional population to proclaim the magical party switch.... what are you using for the theory that south started turning Republican after 1964?Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
I would love to hear this theory play out in your head...
See? You are much better at this than actually having to deal with pesky things like reality, facts, math, logic and intelligence. THIS is your wheelhouse.Quote:
This isn't the first time you fell for illogical bullshit the Republicans were feeding you.... at some point you have to own that you are easily manipulated by your party and just be ok with it.
Is this where you will claim that Lincoln was a Democrat, that the Republicans started the KKK and Jim Crow laws.. and that Democrats have always been the party for civil rights and woman suffrage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Because you are even far more gone that drauz.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/aXUU3...ized-large.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Leave it to tgo01 to fuck this up....
Asshole.
You could just look at what party starting winning the popular vote in each southern state, crazy how it is straight democrat and then magically in 1964 it turns republican for all of them. Almost like they saw what they wanted in a new political party. Just keep sticking your head in the sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm going to need a source for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
"Straight Democrat for every southern state.. then in 1964 until today for all of them." -drauz 2022
I'll wait for it... but we both know you already figured out that you are wrong. :(
ExxonMobil and Chevron posted their quarter one profits for 2022 and their profits merely double or quintupled from the prior year. I'm sure the Republic party will be OUTRAGED they're going to have to pay reduced taxes while reaping some of the highest profits in the history of both companies. It's worth noting ExxonMobil may have tripled it's prior year earnings if they didn't write-down a Russian endeavor, not that those assets are going anywhere, or that Russia announced seizing equipment or demanded a payout.
American's are facing their own records -- energy derived inflation in all things from food, consumer products, fuel expenses. But THANKFULLY that money is going into the pockets of gleeful oil industry executives. You know, the ones who have publicly stated they're keeping oil supply low to boost oil prices.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...ices-Soar.htmlQuote:
Exxon And Chevron Post Blockbuster Earnings As Oil Prices Soar
ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) doubled its earnings to $5.5 billion for Q1 compared to the same period of last year, despite a $3.4 billion after-tax charge related to its decision to exit the Russia Sakhalin-1 project.
Chevron (NYSE: CVX), for its part, reported adjusted earnings of $6.5 billion, or $3.36 per diluted share, for first quarter of 2022. That’s more than triple the adjusted earnings of $1.7 billion for the first quarter of 2021, and the highest quarterly earnings for Chevron since 2012.
Record profits in the European sector as well, as BP, Shell and energy commodities trader TotalEnergies disclose they're profiting in buy/selling commodities stock as much as they are actually producing and refining oil. Meanwhile, the Right continues blaming the Biden administration for high oil prices as a smokescreen on behalf of Big Oil, who hasn't seen quarterly returns like this since the last time commodities and derivatives almost destroyed our economy in 2008. As always, the numbers speak for themselves and Big Oil is the clear culprit.
Quote:
BP, for example, reported last week a quarterly profit that was more than double last year's first quarter— far exceeding analyst expectations, thanks to high oil prices and what it described as an "exceptional" oil and gas trading business.
The strong first-quarter earnings were "driven by exceptional oil and gas trading, higher oil realizations and a stronger refining result, partly offset by the absence of Rosneft from the first quarter underlying result," BP said. The firm hailed "an exceptional gas marketing and trading result, albeit lower than in 2021." In its customers & products division, BP noted a return to profit in refining and "an exceptional oil trading result."
BP's combined refining and trading adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) surged to over $2 billion in the first quarter, from $400 million for Q4 2021 and $419 million for the same period last year, the earnings release showed. But the company—like the other majors—isn't breaking down the results from trading only, nor does it say how much it is earning from oil and/or gas trading.
BP likely made $1.2 billion from gas trading and another $400 million from oil trading in the first quarter, Oswald Clint at Bernstein has estimated.
Quote:
For Shell, "trading plays an integrated part in our results always," CFO Sinead Gorman said on the call.
"But particularly this quarter, it's fair to say that in our chemicals and products area, particularly on the product side, we had very strong trading and optimization results," Gorman added, without specifying numbers.
"Trading is doing a fantastic job," said Wael Sawan, Integrated Gas, Renewables and Energy Solutions Director at Shell.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...g-Profits.htmlQuote:
TotalEnergies noted the "outperformance by its oil trading activities" and "very good performance of the gas, LNG and electricity trading activities."
Outperformance in crude oil and petroleum products trading activities helped TotalEnergies see a jump in its adjusted net operating income for the Refining and Chemicals segment—that income surged to $1.12 billion for Q1 2022 from $243 million for the first quarter of 2021.
Tell us you don't know how supply and demand works without telling us you don't know how supply and demand works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You know what I think was a boss move? Opening up the reserves because gas prices are too high, then selling that oil at market value to the public while simultaneously accusing oil producers of price gouging.
That takes an INCREDIBLE amount of balls.
Or hypocrisy. I'm going to go with hypocrisy.
Oil producers: "Oil prices are high in the US because world wide supply has decreased!! Pump less oil!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Republicans: "BIBENPREZ is allowing oil companies who buy SPR oil to ship it overseas to offset supply supply disruptions!!! He's even asking market price as not to hurt US taxpayers!! IMPEACH IMPEACH"
Americans: "Why are oil companies raking in record profits when I can't afford rent?"
Republicans: "More regulations on oil sales, less regulations on drilling, less taxes on oil company profits because THEY ARE HURTINGGGGGG. Down with BIBEN!"
Oil producers: "Huehuehue"
Even Jen Psaki said you are full of shit and retarded. Here's her quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
"U.S. production of natural gas and oil is rising and approaching record levels: More natural gas than ever this year, more oil than ever next year, and, even with a global pandemic, more oil production this past year than during the previous administration’s first year."
It must suck when your own side also thinks you are a mouth breathing retard.
Finally, something that has broad bi-partisan support!
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Pric...ing-To-65.htmlQuote:
Failure To Implement Russian Oil Ban Could Send Oil Crashing To $65
Several E.U. member states made it plain that they will veto any E.U. proposal to ban Russian oil (or gas) imports.
Removal of oil ban ‘fear factor’ may significantly reduce risk premium in crude oil prices.
Lack of clear leadership from Germany makes an effective oil embargo a long shot.
A key factor in the upper band of the benchmark crude oil trading ranges over the past weeks is market concern over a ban of Russian oil exports to the European Union (E.U.). Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Europe was importing around 2.7 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Russia and another 1.5 million bpd of oil products, mostly diesel. This fear, though, is vastly overblown for several reasons analyzed below. The removal of this particular fear factor in the oil price will allow oil prices to move back over the course of this year to the level they were before the Russia-Ukraine ‘war premium’ began to be priced in by the smart money in September 2021, which was around US$65 per barrel (pb) of Brent. The primary reason why a meaningful E.U. ban on Russian oil (or gas) will not occur is that it would require the unanimous backing of all of its 27 member countries.
All of this rhetorical flim-flam by Germany and the E.U. has resulted in an oil price that remains way above where it should be, given the confluence of multiple bearish factors currently at play. On the supply side there remain definite pledges from the U.S. Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, to engineer a “significant increase” in domestic energy supply by the end of the year, with the U.S. also working to identify at least three million bpd of new global oil supply.
Let's see,
Big Oil closed refineries - to maximize profit
Big Oil idled wells and stopped completion on existing wells to minimize supply - to maximize profit (they announced it publicly!)
Big Oil is reaping more profit in six months than they did in six years, by doing all of the above
But somehow the odious morons on the Right have convinced a handful of morons here that it's Biden's fault. This justhttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...e-To-Stay.htmlQuote:
High Gasoline And Diesel Prices Are Here To Stay
U.S. gasoline and diesel prices are soaring to record highs nearly every day these days, as crude oil prices hold above $110 a barrel, the Russian invasion of Ukraine upends global crude and refined product trade flows, and refinery capacity globally is now lower than before the pandemic after some refineries—including in the United States—closed permanently after COVID crippled fuel demand in early 2020. There isn't a quick fix for all-time high fuel prices in America— or elsewhere — analysts say. The quickest fix is actually not one American consumers would want — a recession that would lead to job losses.
Despite the Biden Administration's months-long efforts to lower gasoline prices — including massive releases of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and blaming oil companies for price gouging — U.S. refineries cannot catch up with demand.
Not that demand has soared so much. It's the capacity for supply, globally and in the U.S, that is now a few million barrels per day lower than it was before the pandemic.
U.S. Refinery Capacity Lowest Since 2015
Some 1 million barrels per day (bpd) of refinery capacity in America has been shut permanently since the start of the pandemic, as refiners have opted to either close losing facilities or convert some of them into biofuel production sites. Globally, refinery capacity is also stretched thin, especially after Western buyers — including in the U.S. — are no longer importing Russian vacuum gas oil (VGO) and other intermediate products necessary for refining crude into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
The fuel market is extremely tight in Europe, too, considering that many refiners refuse to stock Russian crude and suppliers shun Russian diesel, even if the EU is still struggling to reach a common stance on an embargo on Russian oil imports.
In the U.S., refinery operable capacity was at just over 18 million bpd in 2021, the lowest since 2015, per EIA data.
"As you well know, 1 million barrels of distillation capacity has exited the system since pre-pandemic," Mike Jennings, CEO at refiner HF Sinclair and Holly Energy Partners, said on the Q1 earnings call last week.
Distillate refining margins are sky high due to a shortage of refined product, he added.
The majority of the people know it's Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and greed amongst Big Oil, yet for the simplicity of seeing Biden as President and Democrats being in power get to share the blame. Seems as if people are smarter than the idiot Conservatives on this board.
https://fox59.com/news/national-worl...gh-gas-prices/Quote:
Biden, Putin or Big Oil: Who is to blame for high gas prices?
The vast majority of Americans blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for skyrocketing gas prices, a new ABC poll found this week, but nearly as many also blame oil companies.
Despite the overwhelming majority of respondents pointing the finger at Putin and Big Oil, there was plenty of blame to go around, with a slim majority saying Democratic policies and President Joe Biden were also causing factors in pain at the pump. Similarly split views were seen in a recent NewsNation poll.
Seran seems big mad again.
So, the buck doesn’t stop with Biden?
Biden is well aware that everyday American people are suffering from inflation and high gas prices.
He can taste it…
The lack of coherent thought amongst the Conservatives here is vastly amusing.
Perfect example of what Big Oil is doing in the United States, artificially manipulating prices upwards despite the administrations efforts to reduce prices. The inventory it's there, but the executives are illegally price gouging.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/comm...o6AhrLB0RQWQ4YQuote:
Explainer: Why Indonesia's palm oil export ban has not cooled cooking oil prices
May 17 (Reuters) - Indonesia, the world's biggest palm oil exporter, has since April 28 halted shipments of the edible oil in a bid to flood the domestic market with supplies to control the soaring prices of cooking oil.
Despite these tough policies that have rattled edible oil markets and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, the price of cooking oil, a staple for Indonesian families, has not come down, hitting the approval rating of President Joko Widodo.
Trade Minister Muhammad Lutfi on March 18 blamed a "palm oil mafia" for exploiting the situation. Sending a chill through one of Indonesia's main export sectors, the attorney general launched a corruption investigation over palm oil export permitting, arresting a senior trade ministry official and three palm oil executives.
"The factories have the cooking oil, but they are not selling to consumers," said Gulat, who believes the system should be streamlined.
Wait... "Big Oil" is now including any company that makes any type of anything that has the word "oil" in it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Palm oil hahahahahahaha look at this fucking idiot :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Public interest lawsuit charging anticompetitive and price fixing by United States oil giants, as negotiated by Donald Trump. 13 million barrels of oil dissappeared as a result of Trump's oil company collusion and as a result, oil companies continue to hold back supply to maintain high prices.
Quote:
CONSUMERS CHARGE MAJOR AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES FIXED PRICES ON OIL AND GASOLINE SINCE MARCH AND APRIL OF 2020, IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
[4:22-cv-01979-JSW, D'Augusta v. American Petroleum Institute, et al.]Quote:
However, as alleged, the American oil companies sought to stop the Saudi Arabia and Russia price war. They believed that former President Trump could get an agreement from both Saudi Arabia and Russia to stop the price war. The oil company executives set up an emergency meeting with the former President. A meeting was held in the Cabinet Room of the White House on April 3, 2020. After the meeting with the major oil companies on April 2nd and 3rd, former President Donald Trump reversed his position and called Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (Crown Prince) of Saudi Arabia and President Vladimir Putin of Russia to call off their price war so that oil prices could be raised.
As a result of the calls by former President Trump, the Crown Prince of Saudia Arabia and President Vladimir Putin agreed to end their price war. However, they required the American oil companies to agree to cut their oil production as well. The American oil companies agreed. Saudi Arabia and Russia announced a reduction of 10 million barrels a day; and the former United States Secretary of Energy announced at the G2 meeting on April 10, 2020 that the American oil companies would cut 2-3 million barrels a day.
Imagine that, oil prices and gas prices started raising the same time Trump arranged for 13 million barrels per day to dissappear from the energy market. Surprise surprise, Republicans are enabling Big Oil to loot and pillage America's wallets and shift the blame.
Of course it's supply and demand. Supply is being held back by Big Oil.
there's our seran, blaming Trump, what would we do without you.
FUCK YOU BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/034...b21bf616b.jpeg
Hey hey, I don't belong to anyone, no matter how good that massage was at con. For that matter, your offhand rejection of fact and wholesale acceptance of Republican myths makes us not suitable partners. I decline your offer, but thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by beldannon5
The House of Representatives passed H.R 7688 Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, which would deliver the President the ability to declare by proclamation that it is illegal to excessively increase gasoline, diesel or other fuel prices by wholesalers or retailers, in areas affected by local or national emergency.
To quote the bill:
Unsurprisingly, the entire Republican caucus, whose donors rely on being able to price gouge and exploit monopolies created by Republican officials, voted against the bill. Because why would you want to protect consumers?Quote:
Whether the amount charged by such person grossly exceeds the average price at which the consumer fuel was offered for sale by such person during—
(I) the 30-day period before the date on which the proclamation was issued; or
(II) another appropriate benchmark period, as determined by the Commission. (ii) Whether the amount charged by such person grossly exceeds the price at, which the same or a similar fuel was readily obtainable in the same area from other sellers during the energy emergency period.
Republicans won't vote for a half ass measure like that. If we want to take down Big Oil, we need to go after all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
ALL OILS ARE PART OF THIS NOT JUST FUEL OIL!
We got your back Seran!
Speaking of republicans blocking things, what does abstinence mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I wouldn't be carrying water for someone who openly admits they think that government spending isn't a cause of inflation.
"I'm sick of this stuff! American people think inflation is government spending more money. Simply not true!" - Biden, 3/11/2022, Democratic Conference, Philadelphia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS4Ranger
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-ec...tion#authorboxQuote:
Little to No Effect on Inflation
Across the board, we found almost no effect of government spending on inflation. For example, in our benchmark specification, we found that a 10 percent increase in government spending led to an 8 basis point decline in inflation. Moreover, the effect is not statistically different from zero.
Does our finding, by itself, imply that countercyclical government spending is ineffective at boosting output? Not necessarily. Our paper simply demonstrates that the inflation channel of government spending is not an empirically important way that this spending might affect the economy.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You actually think that the government increasing the money supply by like 40% since Biden took office isn't the cause of inflation? That is some serious retardation there. By definition, the increase in the money supply IS inflation.
Moron.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...-stop-post.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Add Newsweek to the list of major publishers and news sources who are printing the truth of Big Oil profiteering at the cost of everyday Americans and calling on the Whitehouse and Congress to do something to stop their monopolistic and anticompetitive practices.
https://www.newsweek.com/congress-wh...pinion-1707914Quote:
Congress and the White House Can Provide Relief from High Oil and Drug Prices
Meanwhile, there's lots of evidence that corporate greed and monopoly power are major contributors to the problem. Corporate profits are growing faster than inflation; companies are acknowledging that they are raising prices because they can, not because costs are going up; and workers' wages are not keeping up with inflation. These are problems that can be addressed, in part, by tough anti-monopoly policies and more worker unionization—but even if we get those things, they may take years to have full impact.
Big Oil is socking us every day at the gas pump, and as a direct result, they are reporting record profits. Not counting one-time charges related to losses in Russia, in the first quarter of 2022, BP reported $6.2 billion in profit; ExxonMobil chimed in with $8.8 billion; Shell set a record with $9.1 billion in profits; and Chevron clocked in with profits of $6.3 billion. Those astronomical sums are just from the first three months of 2022!
There's no secret as to why their profits are soaring: Big Oil has fixed costs of production while the market price of oil is skyrocketing, thanks to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and other reasons. This is a classic situation of windfall profits.
Enough is enough of Republicans shielding corporations and enabling thrm to exploit the market, to use anticompetitive practices to control supply. Our nation is waking up to the fact Trump and Big Oil, along with Russia and OPEC colluded to pull millions and millions of barrels of oil per day off the market to rise prices.
"None of this is Biden's fault guys. Literally none omg!" -SeranusQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
FUCK BIG OIL AND THEIR OUT OF CONTROL PRICE HIKES ON PALM OIL!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Spoiler: The price of oil was half of what it is today when Trump left... but in Seran's "mind", it's still Trump's fault!
Imagine the idiocy of the Conservashits who think President negotiating with Big Oil through the American Petroleum Institution to take 6 million barrels of oil per day off the market isn't material to price increases. Gotta shake your head because the price of oil started going up dramatically after Trump did this. Big Oil of course has no interest in restoring the cuts and have said so publicly.
What does abstinence mean and how are Republicans trying to block it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Yeah Seran, what does abstinence mean and how are Republicans trying to block it like you said they were doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by GelstonWhat does abstinence mean and how are Republicans trying to block it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
So weird how you keep going out of your way to dodge this question, despite it being a claim you made yourself.
Imagine the idiocy of Seran who thinks that all oils are part of "Big Oil" even though they aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I guess if there wasn't an Internet or an ability to actually look up things.. you might be able to craft your fairy tale anyway you want.
Unfortunately, that data exists that confirms the one truth on this forum: You are the biggest retard.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...PET&s=RWTC&f=M
Take a look at 2018, 2019, 2020... it doesn't start "going up dramatically" until 2021.. when Biden was in office.
I don't expect you to understand any of this... because numbers and words confuse you so much... but just so normal people know you are full of shit.