I think you were watching another station. My wife and I watched it and there was no mention of it being faked. When that scene came on I do recall thinking in passing "Something there doesn't look quite right" but I didn't dwell on it--we were more enjoying rewinding the part where they lit the torch, which was pretty cool. But reading the article now, well, it makes perfect sense why that seem didn't feel quite right even to the casual observer.
Oh, and by the way -- McCain supporters are the *last* people who should ever complain about waffling [alternet.org]. He's made an entire career out of it.
I don't dispute that. I'm no fan of McCain. He's definitely no more than the lesser evil of two lessers. We're screwed either way.
He's mocking how little oil drilling in the restricted areas would return. And he's absolutely right about that.
That demonstrates a lack of knowledge of economics. We need every drop of oil we can get. Conservation is great but it will only get you so far.
Put it this way. Right now, IIRC, there is worldwide surplus capacity of something like 2 or 3 million barrels day. As long as we have excess capacity the price of oil will be driven by perceptions. But the moment the world needs more oil than it can produce, the cost of oil will skyrocket like nothing we've seen so far.
Even if it's only an extra few hundred thousand barrels of oil, it behooves us (and the entire world) to have that capacity online and ready to go. Because if we see the day that demand exceeds capacity, even by a few barrels per day, get ready for some truly high prices.
Also, I've seen that claim of 200,000 barrels per day but I haven't seen the source material. Do you have a link handy?
Me: But our economy and demand for oil will continue to grow.
You: Have you checked our economic growth figures lately? Or the world's, for that matter? We're in the red, and the world is only slightly in the black.
And you want to bank our future on the bet that the national and worldwide economic recession will be bad forever? That's not the kind of thinking I want in the White House. Of course our economy and the worldwide economy--and demand for oil--will continue to grow over the long term. We need to be prepared for that.
1) Offshore drilling means oil in 5-10 years -- not in 2 years, and certainly not now. Drilling is a *long term* way to adjust market supply.
Two answers: 1) The "5-10 years" is not accurate. When an oil company decides to drill, it doesn't take that long to deploy. 2-3 years is more accurate. 2) We need a long-term solution, not just a quick fix.
2) Reduction in consumption is equivalent to adding more supply, except that reductions in consumption happen *immediately*.
*Sigh* I already explained this.
No-one is saying that it doesn't make sense to conserve, too. But, short-term economic problems notwithstanding, the long-term trend of the country and for the world is growth. Even if save 600,000 barrels of oil inflating our tires, the economy will still eventually grow and need more than those 600,000 barrels--even if we keep inflating our tires. We STILL need to drill to prepare for the future.
World oil supply today is 87M BBD, while world demand is 88M BBD.
We're talking about capacity, not the amount produced. As the report itself says on page 31: "Tight spare capacity is another supportive factor, especially against the background of rising tension over Iranâ(TM)s nuclear activities." Spare capacity means there's still an ability to produce more than we need, and that's all that's necessary to keep prices in check. When we no longer have that ability, we're toast.
Me: The price of oil is currently being driven by perceptions of the market, not by insufficient oil.
You: Gee, now who's energy plan, in the "short term" section, includes cracking down on speculators? (hint: not McCain's).
*Sigh* I give up. I'm talking to someone that doesn't understand how the market works. If you're blaming "evil speculators" for the price, you're just looking for a scapegoat. The market as a whole prices in its expectations of future supply into the price of oil. You can't avoid that. Speculators make money off changes in those expectations but they can't significantly drive the price up beyond what the market believes is a reasonable price. And if the market believes it's a reasonable price, that price is going to be the price whether speculators make money off it or not.
I can't use HDMI anyway. At least with my hardware, closed captioning does not work through HDMI. And we need closed captioning in our household. When I first bought my HDMI-capable 46" LCD TV, I bought HDMI cables. I took them back the next day when I realized closed captioning didn't work.
So I use normal DVD, normal cable box, and standard analog cables to the 46" LCD TV. Looks fine to us.
That, and the fact that many Blu-Ray discs take 90+ seconds to go from insertion to movie watching is just stupid.
Huh? I'm not interested in Blu-Ray at all because the quality I get on a 46" 1080p LCD and a normal DVD player is more than adequate for me. But what is this about Blu-Rays discs taking 90+ seconds to start watching??? Is that true? If so, why?? I agree, if I were contemplating getting a Blu-Ray player, that alone would make me think twice. Or even think twelve times.
A little off topic, but I totally don't get the unskippable commercials/trailers/MPAA rightthink segments.
I've found that, so far, Disney is the worst offender. When I run into one of those DVDs I do get entirely pissed off. I normally just mute it and go and do something else for awhile and then come back.
The frustrating thing is if you've rented it you're into the movie and get to a place where, apparently, the DVD is dirty. So you have to eject it and clean it and then you get stuck with the friggin' commercial again.
Granted, but Blu-Ray isn't enough of an improvement to justify going out and getting it.
IF my DVD player dies a couple years from and IF there are as many Blu-Ray titles as there are DVD tiles and IF those titles cost approximately the same and IF the Blu-Ray player costs only a few dollars more than a DVD player, I *might* buy a Blu-Ray player. If any of those conditions aren't true then I probably won't.
I suspect that's probably the case with most people who watch DVDs as entertainment and not as an obsession for having the latest technology.
More likely, though, by the time my DVD player dies and I'm forced to make a decision, I'll be getting my videos online. I already can get new movies via Comcast so the only benefit to having a DVD player at all is for the older movies. Once technology/bandwidth increases and Comcast/others can provide a true massive library of OnDemand videos, I doubt I'll buy a DVD/Blu-Ray player at all.
Exactly. I have the exact same quality and size TV and while I don't have a Blue-ray to compare it to, I never find myself watching a DVD and thinking, "Man, I wish I had better quality."
I'm a certified geek, but I don't have any motivation whatsoever to get Blue-Ray. I'll probably only buy it when normal DVDs become unavailable and my current DVD player dies. But as long as DVDs are available and my DVD player keeps working, I have no need to replace it.
He was asked what people can do right now to affect our oil consumption, and he answered with something that's A) absolutely true, and B) recommended by people on both sides of the aisle
That might have been the original intent, but if you listen to his quote, he's basically insinuating that there's no need to drill because we can supposedly save more simply by inflating our tires; he's mocking the need to drill for oil by suggesting that we can essentially get just as much by inflating our tires. That's wrong on at least two levels:
Even if you use his 3% figure, that's 600,000 barrels per day. To suggest that that's more than we can get by drilling our known petroleum reserves is not accurate.
If everyone inflated their tires correctly and there was actually a 3% efficiency gain to be had, great, we'd reduce our 20 million barrel consumption to 19.4 million. But our economy and demand for oil will continue to grow, as it will around the world. So we'd get a one-time bump of 3% but our consumption will still increase so we still need more oil. If everything Obama said is entirely accurate, it still only buys us a little time--probably less than 2 years. It does NOT negate the need to drill for more oil which is what Obama's mocking statements effectively imply.
Of course, Obama has started waffling. He originally believed (accurately, I might add) that we shouldn't tap the strategic oil reserve but now he thinks we should. Which is an inherent admission that to reduce prices, we need more oil on the market. Guess what? Drilling will produce that.
Obama has also waffled and has taken a step back from firm opposition to offshore drilling. He's realized that position is not a winning position for him given people are tired of paying $4/gallon for gas. So now he has restated his position and is now willing to allow drilling.
Obama has an energy plan? Regardless of what his stated plan is, it seems it's more dictated by tire inflation and the whims of polls telling him he was fighting a losing battle.
And, FYI, the cost benefit of everyone inflating tires properly isn't that it saves you that much money directly. It's that the market is so tight right now that *any* relevant decrease in consumption can lead to significant oil price reductions.
Nope. There is still more oil being produced on a daily basis than there is consumed. The price of oil is currently being driven by perceptions of the market, not by insufficient oil. If you want to see REAL high oil prices, wait for the day that the world actually needs more oil than it is producing. At that point, we're toast. Which is why we need to start drilling now--so we put off that day as long as possible, hopefully giving us time to find alternatives.
Look at how much oil prices have dropped recently from people reducing their driving 3-5% over the same time last year)
As I said, there is no shortage of oil on the worldwide market. The recent price drop in oil is simply a confluence of more optimistic outlooks on the future supply of oil: Bush has ended the presidential ban on offshore drilling so it's now up to the Democratic congress who are under mounting political and popular pressure to do the same, both Obama and McCain are advocating more drilling so it seems it's only a matter of time before there is more oil flowing, a tropical storm that was threatening the Gulf Coast passed without any disruptions to the oil infrastructure, Chavez hasn't been acting up a bit and Iran seems a bit less eager for confrontation than it was 3-9 months ago.
Again, as I said, there's no shortage of oil and prices didn't run up 20% over two months and fall the same amount over a couple weeks because demand was going up. Demand has been falling since last year so if this were a supply/demand prob
Tire underinflated to 28 psi instead of 34 psi on my parents' SUV gives them a 10% reduction in mileage without feeling noticeably sloshy while driving.
And how often do you find your tires have gone from 34 to 28 PSI? I check my tires every month or two. Usually I find they're still perfectly inflated. Every now and then I have to add one or two PSI. If you're regularly going from 34 to 28 PSI, get your tires checked!
The point being: With properly maintained tires, you really shouldn't HAVE to check your inflation that often since they'll stay inflated all by themselves.
Obama was pointing out that offshore drilling won't save the world nor will it have significant impact on the oil situation.
It won't save the world, but it would have a significant impact on oil prices. The price of oil is driven--recently--not so much by supply (there is still more oil being produced than is being consumed on a daily basis), but by perceptions. If there is a belief that oil will be lacking in the future (because Chavez or Iran is acting up, because something gets blown up in Nigeria, because a hurricane is approaching the Gulf Coast), the price of oil goes up even though neither supply nor demand has changed.
The price of oil is still driven almost entirely by beliefs, perceptions, and expectations. If the world has the belief and expectation that the U.S. is serious about drilling for the oil we have, the price of oil will plummet like a rock even though there isn't any more supply immediately available.
Just look at the price of oil the last couple weeks. It's dropped significantly but that's not because demand dropped that much or because supply increased that much. It's just a confluence of more optimistic expectations about the future supply of oil.
At some point the price of oil will be driven by supply. As soon as the world needs more oil than we produce, THEN we'll be screwed. THEN we'll see some ungodly oil prices that make today's prices look like a free meal. What we can and MUST do to avoid that is to start going after the oil BEFORE we get to that point.
Let me be clear: I don't like McCain. But I dislike Obama more.
As you point out, very simple, free measures like this would immediately make a bigger impact on oil prices and independence than all of McCain's oil drilling plans put together could make over the next few decades, and they do it for free with no negative effects.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
World demand for oil will continue to increase. Assuming all cars in the U.S. are underinflated AND assuming we can really get a 3% savings by inflating them properly, we'd have a one-time reduction of 3% in OUR demand for oil. There are only two problems with that:
We aren't the only users of oil in the world. So even if we save 3%, India's and China's continued growth will eat that for lunch.
The 3% saving would be a one-time reduction in demand. Maybe instead of consuming 20 million barrels per day, we'll drop tomorrow to $19.4 million barrels per day. But we will keep growing from there. How long will it take for us to grow our demand by the 3% we saved by inflating our universally under-inflated tires? Once we grow by 3%, we're back where we started and we STILL need more oil.
In short, Obama's tire inflation is a valid recommendation to save an individual some money and maybe lead to a one-time reduction in U.S. demand in oil. But since we'll still continue to grow, all Obama's tire solution does is buys us a little bit of time. How long will it take for U.S. demand for oil to increase 3%? Maybe two years or so? So his solution buys us two years, maybe (maybe not since China and India are consuming more and more oil regardless of what we do, and their increases will put pressure on prices even if our reductions try to relieve that pressure).
Meanwhile, finding MORE oil is something we need to do whether we inflate our tires or not. We're going to need the oil anyway so we need to start finding it and getting it out of the ground.
Improving efficiency (tire inflation) and reducing consumption of oil is a valid aspect of the equation. But drilling for the oil we know we have is the other aspect of the equation. Obama (and like-minded liberals) are sticking their heads in the sand if they think they can address our energy needs by only looking at one side of the equation.
And lastly, what are the chances of everyone in the US getting together and checking their tire pressure systematically?
Exactly. Sure, the average citizen that spends, what, $2000/year on gas would probably save about $5/month IF their tires weren't already properly inflated and IF they really got a 3% bump. But the chances of that happening systematically across the U.S. population are zero. So while the advice is valid, it's not going to make much of a difference in any individual's pocketbook (maybe $5/month) and won't have any significant effect on the country's energy consumption because it won't be implemented by every citizen.
I'll bet Obama supporters check their tires for a few weeks... then even they will forget.
I always keep my tires properly inflated--but mostly for safety reasons. I don't want improper wear on my tire causing a tire failure on the highway. If I actually get better MPG, that's just an added bonus.
yeah, but maybe instead of potentially upsetting the environment for the forseeable future to get more oil in 5 - 10 years, we could spend the same money and effort on finding and/or improving an existing alternative to oil.
Sure, we could. But I'm not willing to bet the future of the civilized and developed world on the hunch that we might find an alternative prior to depleting current oil reserves.
I'm 100% in favor of looking for alternatives to oil. Heck, if there's any good side to the high oil prices it's that it's providing motivation for the free market to find and develop those alternatives. However, it is absolutely absurd and dangerous to STOP looking for oil UNTIL we have something that is actually USABLE to replace it. We don't. And while we might find a replacement tomorrow, it might take decades. And we need oil to keep the planet operating until then.
It may sound funny but the truth is he's absolutely right.
No-one disputes the fact that keeping tires properly inflated provides the best gas mileage. The issue is the fact that that is, so far, the best Obama has to offer as a "solution" to high prices, other than tapping into the strategic reserve--and he was right before he waffled that the strategic reserve should only be used for real emergencies.
The fastest easiest way to add more oil to the market is to cut back on usage.
That doesn't increase supply, it decreases demand. But overall demand will continue to grow so while everyone making sure their tires are inflated would provide a one-time burst of reduced demand, overall demand will continue to grow and WILL require more supply.
Even the oil companies admit they can't get the new oil to market in less than five to ten years.
That's not true. Do some investigating. That's just typical Democratic party-line claims and it may be true that some oil fields wouldn't be fully online for 5-10 years, but oil would start flowing much sooner than that.
Also, the oil doesn't actually have to flow to start lowering prices. If Congress signed off on offshore drilling you would see the price of oil plummet overnight even though any oil extraction might be 1-3 years away. The price of oil factors in buyer's expectations of future supplies. A firm statement from the U.S. that "we have lots of oil off our cost and we're going to go get it" would drop the price of oil like a rock.
Do a search and see what the truth is not what the oil company stooges are feeding you.
I'll do that if you promise to Google for the truth about what the Democratic party and environmentalist stooges are feeding you. Granted, you'll have to work harder because hating the oil industry is hip while revealing the truth about the Democratic party's policies is shunned--even though the former actually produces something that benefits the country while the latter seems to do everything it can to stand in the way of progress.
Yeah, but we can afford it now that Obama has reduced American oil consumption by enlightening us all to the fact that we should check the air pressure in the tires of our vehicles for maximum efficiency. Screw Chavez, we don't need his oil anymore! We have Obama and his tire pressure gauges! We are saved!:)
My marginal effective tax rate by the end of the year--the money I cut checks for to the state and federal government--is something like 43% when you consider state income tax, federal income tax, and self-employment tax (which is both employee and employer social security/Medicaid/etc.).
And since I'm self-employed and income is very variable, I never know how much I'm going to make in the year. So I can't just take last year's tax burden and divide by 4 because if I make less then all the sudden I'm friggin' short of cash until I can request a refund. And if I "set aside and pay taxes as I go" then my marginal rate is initially pretty low (since we all start in the lowest tax bracket each year) and then gets worse as the year goes on and my confirmed earnings increase--as I said, by the end of the year I'd have to be paying close to 43% of every dollar I bring in which simply isn't possible.
So I end up setting aside about 33% of all my income in a "for taxes" savings account, and once a quarter I send checks in for MOST of what I've set aside (maybe 75%) leaving a slightly-growing balance in my account throughout the year which I then end up "balancing" during the annual tax return--and usually paying a bit of a penalty on because I usually haven't paid enough. But it's a screwed up system because since it's progressive (which I really consider anything but progress) I'm effectively penalized when I don't send in enough but would be screwed if I overestimate my earnings for the year and send to much in that I can't get back until the following January. So all the sudden the IRS penalties become a further cost of being self-employed--as if the friggin' SE tax wasn't cost enough.
The system is so messed up and so expensive... and most people don't even realize it.
It could be our defense has been so effective because the U.S. is surrounded by two huge oceans and the logistical challenges of attacking the U.S. are formidable.
Yes, that helps. But you're taking a dangerous leap in assuming that is the only reason. Japan successfully attacked the U.S. in WWII, albeit Hawaii, and they did so over thousands of miles of ocean. Russia or China (going through Russia) could quite easily attack Canada and the U.S. by going through Alaska. Mexico is essentially invading us NOW (though I'm not a radical right-winger that actually believes it's an intentional act of war of Mexico).
We also have to consider the reality that the Middle East might as well be "ours" in the sense that we have to defend its stability because, without it, we would run out of oil and be facing a threat every bit as real as a full frontal attack from an invading force.
Rationalizing preemptive warfare is an enormously foolish thing to do. Taken to its logical conclusion you will quickly turn in to a rogue state engaged in non stop aggressive warfare and operating at the same level as Nazi Germany.
No, that would be taking the policy to its ILLOGICAL conclusion.
The rationales used in Granada, Kosovo and Panama were just as weak. None of those wars had anything to do with defending the U.S. or even preempting a threat they were just cases of the U.S. being a bully.
I won't disagree with that assertion. That doesn't mean there aren't situations where preemptive wars are completely reasonable and, in fact, the best course of action. And a valid defense.
I'm a single male without kids, 31 and in great health. I dropped my insurance provider back in 2005 when the 3 month premium went from $900 to $1400 in one fell swoop due to new state mandates on what the insurance company has to provide.
Holy cr*p! What did your state mandate the insurance company had to provide? A house for each patient? I'm 37 and my wife is 34 and I have asthma, and our combined health insurance bill (which I pay for out of pocket since I'm self-employed) is $356/month, or ~$178/month/person. How in the heck do you get to $1400/3=$466/month/person??
Let me guess: You live in a Democrat state (or a state where Republicans act like Democrats) and they passed health care measures to "help" the population get better access to "free" health care.:)
Insurance costs us(family of 4) 1200 a month... No, socialized medicine in the USs time has come.
Why? So you can pay 2400/month instead, and have worse service?
I could agree with more government regulations to make sure the free market is working as efficiently as it can in the health care industry. But the LAST thing we want to do is get the government into the health care business.
Because by making a tiny individual sacrifice (the increase in healthcare costs) we improve the lives of those unfortunate enough to have a long-term medical problem.
Except the individual sacrifice ISN'T tiny. And while I choose to be altruistic, I shouldn't be forced to be.
Social justice, or responsibility would dictate that more of that money is spent on universal health care, rather than military expenses. It's really about prioritizing the budget based on more social priorities, which I honestly don't think will happen in the states any time soon.
Say what? The U.S. already spends more on social programs than it does on the military. And those social programs are pretty much expected to go bankrupt.
We don't need more government spending on social programs. We need LESS.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you were watching another station. My wife and I watched it and there was no mention of it being faked. When that scene came on I do recall thinking in passing "Something there doesn't look quite right" but I didn't dwell on it--we were more enjoying rewinding the part where they lit the torch, which was pretty cool. But reading the article now, well, it makes perfect sense why that seem didn't feel quite right even to the casual observer.
All the standard 9/11 and anti-Bush conspiracies have gotten old and debunked, so the new conspiracy theory is: THE OLYMPIC CONSPIRACY!
I don't dispute that. I'm no fan of McCain. He's definitely no more than the lesser evil of two lessers. We're screwed either way.
That demonstrates a lack of knowledge of economics. We need every drop of oil we can get. Conservation is great but it will only get you so far.
Put it this way. Right now, IIRC, there is worldwide surplus capacity of something like 2 or 3 million barrels day. As long as we have excess capacity the price of oil will be driven by perceptions. But the moment the world needs more oil than it can produce, the cost of oil will skyrocket like nothing we've seen so far.
Even if it's only an extra few hundred thousand barrels of oil, it behooves us (and the entire world) to have that capacity online and ready to go. Because if we see the day that demand exceeds capacity, even by a few barrels per day, get ready for some truly high prices.
Also, I've seen that claim of 200,000 barrels per day but I haven't seen the source material. Do you have a link handy?
And you want to bank our future on the bet that the national and worldwide economic recession will be bad forever? That's not the kind of thinking I want in the White House. Of course our economy and the worldwide economy--and demand for oil--will continue to grow over the long term. We need to be prepared for that.
Two answers: 1) The "5-10 years" is not accurate. When an oil company decides to drill, it doesn't take that long to deploy. 2-3 years is more accurate. 2) We need a long-term solution, not just a quick fix.
*Sigh* I already explained this.
No-one is saying that it doesn't make sense to conserve, too. But, short-term economic problems notwithstanding, the long-term trend of the country and for the world is growth. Even if save 600,000 barrels of oil inflating our tires, the economy will still eventually grow and need more than those 600,000 barrels--even if we keep inflating our tires. We STILL need to drill to prepare for the future.
We're talking about capacity, not the amount produced. As the report itself says on page 31: "Tight spare capacity is another supportive factor, especially against the background of rising tension over Iranâ(TM)s nuclear activities." Spare capacity means there's still an ability to produce more than we need, and that's all that's necessary to keep prices in check. When we no longer have that ability, we're toast.
*Sigh* I give up. I'm talking to someone that doesn't understand how the market works. If you're blaming "evil speculators" for the price, you're just looking for a scapegoat. The market as a whole prices in its expectations of future supply into the price of oil. You can't avoid that. Speculators make money off changes in those expectations but they can't significantly drive the price up beyond what the market believes is a reasonable price. And if the market believes it's a reasonable price, that price is going to be the price whether speculators make money off it or not.
I can't use HDMI anyway. At least with my hardware, closed captioning does not work through HDMI. And we need closed captioning in our household. When I first bought my HDMI-capable 46" LCD TV, I bought HDMI cables. I took them back the next day when I realized closed captioning didn't work.
So I use normal DVD, normal cable box, and standard analog cables to the 46" LCD TV. Looks fine to us.
Huh? I'm not interested in Blu-Ray at all because the quality I get on a 46" 1080p LCD and a normal DVD player is more than adequate for me. But what is this about Blu-Rays discs taking 90+ seconds to start watching??? Is that true? If so, why?? I agree, if I were contemplating getting a Blu-Ray player, that alone would make me think twice. Or even think twelve times.
I've found that, so far, Disney is the worst offender. When I run into one of those DVDs I do get entirely pissed off. I normally just mute it and go and do something else for awhile and then come back.
The frustrating thing is if you've rented it you're into the movie and get to a place where, apparently, the DVD is dirty. So you have to eject it and clean it and then you get stuck with the friggin' commercial again.
It's entirely annoying.
Granted, but Blu-Ray isn't enough of an improvement to justify going out and getting it.
IF my DVD player dies a couple years from and IF there are as many Blu-Ray titles as there are DVD tiles and IF those titles cost approximately the same and IF the Blu-Ray player costs only a few dollars more than a DVD player, I *might* buy a Blu-Ray player. If any of those conditions aren't true then I probably won't.
I suspect that's probably the case with most people who watch DVDs as entertainment and not as an obsession for having the latest technology.
More likely, though, by the time my DVD player dies and I'm forced to make a decision, I'll be getting my videos online. I already can get new movies via Comcast so the only benefit to having a DVD player at all is for the older movies. Once technology/bandwidth increases and Comcast/others can provide a true massive library of OnDemand videos, I doubt I'll buy a DVD/Blu-Ray player at all.
Exactly. I have the exact same quality and size TV and while I don't have a Blue-ray to compare it to, I never find myself watching a DVD and thinking, "Man, I wish I had better quality."
I'm a certified geek, but I don't have any motivation whatsoever to get Blue-Ray. I'll probably only buy it when normal DVDs become unavailable and my current DVD player dies. But as long as DVDs are available and my DVD player keeps working, I have no need to replace it.
That might have been the original intent, but if you listen to his quote, he's basically insinuating that there's no need to drill because we can supposedly save more simply by inflating our tires; he's mocking the need to drill for oil by suggesting that we can essentially get just as much by inflating our tires. That's wrong on at least two levels:
Of course, Obama has started waffling. He originally believed (accurately, I might add) that we shouldn't tap the strategic oil reserve but now he thinks we should. Which is an inherent admission that to reduce prices, we need more oil on the market. Guess what? Drilling will produce that.
Obama has also waffled and has taken a step back from firm opposition to offshore drilling. He's realized that position is not a winning position for him given people are tired of paying $4/gallon for gas. So now he has restated his position and is now willing to allow drilling.
Obama has an energy plan? Regardless of what his stated plan is, it seems it's more dictated by tire inflation and the whims of polls telling him he was fighting a losing battle.
Nope. There is still more oil being produced on a daily basis than there is consumed. The price of oil is currently being driven by perceptions of the market, not by insufficient oil. If you want to see REAL high oil prices, wait for the day that the world actually needs more oil than it is producing. At that point, we're toast. Which is why we need to start drilling now--so we put off that day as long as possible, hopefully giving us time to find alternatives.
As I said, there is no shortage of oil on the worldwide market. The recent price drop in oil is simply a confluence of more optimistic outlooks on the future supply of oil: Bush has ended the presidential ban on offshore drilling so it's now up to the Democratic congress who are under mounting political and popular pressure to do the same, both Obama and McCain are advocating more drilling so it seems it's only a matter of time before there is more oil flowing, a tropical storm that was threatening the Gulf Coast passed without any disruptions to the oil infrastructure, Chavez hasn't been acting up a bit and Iran seems a bit less eager for confrontation than it was 3-9 months ago.
Again, as I said, there's no shortage of oil and prices didn't run up 20% over two months and fall the same amount over a couple weeks because demand was going up. Demand has been falling since last year so if this were a supply/demand prob
And how often do you find your tires have gone from 34 to 28 PSI? I check my tires every month or two. Usually I find they're still perfectly inflated. Every now and then I have to add one or two PSI. If you're regularly going from 34 to 28 PSI, get your tires checked!
The point being: With properly maintained tires, you really shouldn't HAVE to check your inflation that often since they'll stay inflated all by themselves.
It won't save the world, but it would have a significant impact on oil prices. The price of oil is driven--recently--not so much by supply (there is still more oil being produced than is being consumed on a daily basis), but by perceptions. If there is a belief that oil will be lacking in the future (because Chavez or Iran is acting up, because something gets blown up in Nigeria, because a hurricane is approaching the Gulf Coast), the price of oil goes up even though neither supply nor demand has changed.
The price of oil is still driven almost entirely by beliefs, perceptions, and expectations. If the world has the belief and expectation that the U.S. is serious about drilling for the oil we have, the price of oil will plummet like a rock even though there isn't any more supply immediately available.
Just look at the price of oil the last couple weeks. It's dropped significantly but that's not because demand dropped that much or because supply increased that much. It's just a confluence of more optimistic expectations about the future supply of oil.
At some point the price of oil will be driven by supply. As soon as the world needs more oil than we produce, THEN we'll be screwed. THEN we'll see some ungodly oil prices that make today's prices look like a free meal. What we can and MUST do to avoid that is to start going after the oil BEFORE we get to that point.
Let me be clear: I don't like McCain. But I dislike Obama more.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
World demand for oil will continue to increase. Assuming all cars in the U.S. are underinflated AND assuming we can really get a 3% savings by inflating them properly, we'd have a one-time reduction of 3% in OUR demand for oil. There are only two problems with that:
In short, Obama's tire inflation is a valid recommendation to save an individual some money and maybe lead to a one-time reduction in U.S. demand in oil. But since we'll still continue to grow, all Obama's tire solution does is buys us a little bit of time. How long will it take for U.S. demand for oil to increase 3%? Maybe two years or so? So his solution buys us two years, maybe (maybe not since China and India are consuming more and more oil regardless of what we do, and their increases will put pressure on prices even if our reductions try to relieve that pressure).
Meanwhile, finding MORE oil is something we need to do whether we inflate our tires or not. We're going to need the oil anyway so we need to start finding it and getting it out of the ground.
Improving efficiency (tire inflation) and reducing consumption of oil is a valid aspect of the equation. But drilling for the oil we know we have is the other aspect of the equation. Obama (and like-minded liberals) are sticking their heads in the sand if they think they can address our energy needs by only looking at one side of the equation.
Exactly. Sure, the average citizen that spends, what, $2000/year on gas would probably save about $5/month IF their tires weren't already properly inflated and IF they really got a 3% bump. But the chances of that happening systematically across the U.S. population are zero. So while the advice is valid, it's not going to make much of a difference in any individual's pocketbook (maybe $5/month) and won't have any significant effect on the country's energy consumption because it won't be implemented by every citizen.
I'll bet Obama supporters check their tires for a few weeks... then even they will forget.
I always keep my tires properly inflated--but mostly for safety reasons. I don't want improper wear on my tire causing a tire failure on the highway. If I actually get better MPG, that's just an added bonus.
Sure, we could. But I'm not willing to bet the future of the civilized and developed world on the hunch that we might find an alternative prior to depleting current oil reserves.
I'm 100% in favor of looking for alternatives to oil. Heck, if there's any good side to the high oil prices it's that it's providing motivation for the free market to find and develop those alternatives. However, it is absolutely absurd and dangerous to STOP looking for oil UNTIL we have something that is actually USABLE to replace it. We don't. And while we might find a replacement tomorrow, it might take decades. And we need oil to keep the planet operating until then.
No-one disputes the fact that keeping tires properly inflated provides the best gas mileage. The issue is the fact that that is, so far, the best Obama has to offer as a "solution" to high prices, other than tapping into the strategic reserve--and he was right before he waffled that the strategic reserve should only be used for real emergencies.
That doesn't increase supply, it decreases demand. But overall demand will continue to grow so while everyone making sure their tires are inflated would provide a one-time burst of reduced demand, overall demand will continue to grow and WILL require more supply.
That's not true. Do some investigating. That's just typical Democratic party-line claims and it may be true that some oil fields wouldn't be fully online for 5-10 years, but oil would start flowing much sooner than that.
Also, the oil doesn't actually have to flow to start lowering prices. If Congress signed off on offshore drilling you would see the price of oil plummet overnight even though any oil extraction might be 1-3 years away. The price of oil factors in buyer's expectations of future supplies. A firm statement from the U.S. that "we have lots of oil off our cost and we're going to go get it" would drop the price of oil like a rock.
I'll do that if you promise to Google for the truth about what the Democratic party and environmentalist stooges are feeding you. Granted, you'll have to work harder because hating the oil industry is hip while revealing the truth about the Democratic party's policies is shunned--even though the former actually produces something that benefits the country while the latter seems to do everything it can to stand in the way of progress.
Yeah, but we can afford it now that Obama has reduced American oil consumption by enlightening us all to the fact that we should check the air pressure in the tires of our vehicles for maximum efficiency. Screw Chavez, we don't need his oil anymore! We have Obama and his tire pressure gauges! We are saved! :)
My marginal effective tax rate by the end of the year--the money I cut checks for to the state and federal government--is something like 43% when you consider state income tax, federal income tax, and self-employment tax (which is both employee and employer social security/Medicaid/etc.).
And since I'm self-employed and income is very variable, I never know how much I'm going to make in the year. So I can't just take last year's tax burden and divide by 4 because if I make less then all the sudden I'm friggin' short of cash until I can request a refund. And if I "set aside and pay taxes as I go" then my marginal rate is initially pretty low (since we all start in the lowest tax bracket each year) and then gets worse as the year goes on and my confirmed earnings increase--as I said, by the end of the year I'd have to be paying close to 43% of every dollar I bring in which simply isn't possible.
So I end up setting aside about 33% of all my income in a "for taxes" savings account, and once a quarter I send checks in for MOST of what I've set aside (maybe 75%) leaving a slightly-growing balance in my account throughout the year which I then end up "balancing" during the annual tax return--and usually paying a bit of a penalty on because I usually haven't paid enough. But it's a screwed up system because since it's progressive (which I really consider anything but progress) I'm effectively penalized when I don't send in enough but would be screwed if I overestimate my earnings for the year and send to much in that I can't get back until the following January. So all the sudden the IRS penalties become a further cost of being self-employed--as if the friggin' SE tax wasn't cost enough.
The system is so messed up and so expensive... and most people don't even realize it.
Yes, that helps. But you're taking a dangerous leap in assuming that is the only reason. Japan successfully attacked the U.S. in WWII, albeit Hawaii, and they did so over thousands of miles of ocean. Russia or China (going through Russia) could quite easily attack Canada and the U.S. by going through Alaska. Mexico is essentially invading us NOW (though I'm not a radical right-winger that actually believes it's an intentional act of war of Mexico).
We also have to consider the reality that the Middle East might as well be "ours" in the sense that we have to defend its stability because, without it, we would run out of oil and be facing a threat every bit as real as a full frontal attack from an invading force.
No, that would be taking the policy to its ILLOGICAL conclusion.
I won't disagree with that assertion. That doesn't mean there aren't situations where preemptive wars are completely reasonable and, in fact, the best course of action. And a valid defense.
Holy cr*p! What did your state mandate the insurance company had to provide? A house for each patient? I'm 37 and my wife is 34 and I have asthma, and our combined health insurance bill (which I pay for out of pocket since I'm self-employed) is $356/month, or ~$178/month/person. How in the heck do you get to $1400/3=$466/month/person??
Let me guess: You live in a Democrat state (or a state where Republicans act like Democrats) and they passed health care measures to "help" the population get better access to "free" health care. :)
I rest my case. Move. And vote Republican.
Why? So you can pay 2400/month instead, and have worse service?
I could agree with more government regulations to make sure the free market is working as efficiently as it can in the health care industry. But the LAST thing we want to do is get the government into the health care business.
Except the individual sacrifice ISN'T tiny. And while I choose to be altruistic, I shouldn't be forced to be.
And we're going to "fix" the bureaucracy and its associated bullshit by getting the government involved?
Say what? The U.S. already spends more on social programs than it does on the military. And those social programs are pretty much expected to go bankrupt.
We don't need more government spending on social programs. We need LESS.