$14 in every tank of gas is the result of oil speculation

44 posts / 0 new

Americans are getting screwed at the gas pump. But it has nothing to do with supply and demand or instability in the Middle East. Instead – it has to do with corruption. As investigative reporter Lee Fang at the Republic Report uncovered – a slew of lobbyists are working on behalf of Wall Street to shoot down regulations intended to curb oil speculation.

Bart Chilton, a commissioner with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, said that as much as $14 in every tank of gas you fill up in your truck is a result of excessive oil speculation. That comes out to a $750 a year tax on all drivers courtesy of Wall Street banksters.

Unfortunately for Americans who can’t afford these inflated gas prices – the top Republican financial watchdog in Congress – Representative Spencer Bachus –believes that his job is not to regulate the banks, but instead “regulators are there to serve the banks.”

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

What do you think would happen to oil supplies if Iran successfully stopped all oil tankers from using the Straits of Hormuz?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

Well, then, 'we' need to take over the entire Middle East 'for freedom', don't 'we', WorkerBee?

Or, just blow the whole thing up--and see what the 'God fearers' have left to pick up......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There is speculation in everything you buy. The left is just upset that some people are making money after all everything should be controled by the government and given away for free.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Kerry:

Well, then, 'we' need to take over the entire Middle East 'for freedom', don't 'we', WorkerBee?

Or, just blow the whole thing up--and see what the 'God fearers' have left to pick up......

No, I was just pointing out that the speculation is not taking place within a vacuum. When prices go up consumption gos down right? If there is disruptions to oil supplies then the economy will be better prepared to deal with.

*People will have adjusted their behavior, buying more efficient cars or moving closer to work, started carpooling etc.

*Supplies would have been been built up as the result of less consumption running up to supply disruption.

In short, a price run up over the period of many months is less disruptive then a huge spike. In other words speculation is good.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am
Quote workingman:

There is speculation in everything you buy. The left is just upset that some people are making money after all everything should be controled by the government and given away for free.

Last time I checked, wasn't it our government that was placing the military over in the Middle East for what George W. Bush called 'their freedom'? Or, are you saying that government should get out of the military business and have such 'profitable ventures' resort to mercenary military forces? Is money made there? Is that the 'free market' making such money?

Quote WorkerBee:

If there is disruptions to oil supplies then the economy will be better prepared to deal with.

Well, that is the 'speculative' question, isn't it? Is our military presence in the Middle East endorsing the continuation of our oil supplies--or creating issues that best endorse speculative markets by its presence creating less, not more, stability?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am saying that the government has 18 jobs listed for it in the constitution the military is one if them.

The left hates rich people who have earned their money. They hate the fact that the government does not control everyones life from the crib to the grave.

There is speculation in every product you buy including your food. But because the oil companies make lots if money and pay lots of taxes they are hated, mainly because they make lots of money. Profit is a dirty word to the left.

If you do not believe me look at the futures market every thing from oil to food is in there.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

It sure gets old hearing and reading right wingers accuse the Left of wanting free stuff and being envious of others for making money. Same old tired lies and insults repeated over and over, directed at values they do not understand. The sad thing is that nearly all of the right wingers that criticize government and "free stuff" have received benefits from the government at some point in their life; one way or another.

kittycreek's picture
kittycreek
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 8:09 am
Quote Kerry:Well, that is the 'speculative' question, isn't it?
Not really, does demand not go down when price gos up? WIth less demand is it easier or more dificult to deal with supply disruption?

Quote Kerry:Is our military presence in the Middle East endorsing the continuation of our oil supplies--or creating issues that best endorse speculative markets by its presence creating less, not more, stability?
That is a good question but has little to do with the purpose of the speculative markets.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am
Quote kittycreek:

It sure gets old hearing and reading right wingers accuse the Left of wanting free stuff and being envious of others for making money. Same old tired lies and insults repeated over and over, directed at values they do not understand. The sad thing is that nearly all of the right wingers that criticize government and "free stuff" have received benefits from the government at some point in their life; one way or another.

I am just calling it like I see it, I do not see the left screaming about orange juice speculation or pork bellies, speculation on the food seems to be fine but speculation on oil is bad. The only difference is that oil companies make far more money than the food producers do. They also pay more in taxes than food producers do that is how it works under the communist manifesto the more you make the more they take.

Name one item that is “Free Stuff” I will receive from the government..

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote WorkerBee:
Quote Kerry:

Is our military presence in the Middle East endorsing the continuation of our oil supplies--or creating issues that best endorse speculative markets by its presence creating less, not more, stability?

That is a good question but has little to do with the purpose of the speculative markets.

Are you kidding? When it comes to the speculation in the oil markets? I don't think that it is coincidence that when there is destabilizing in the Middle East (usually due to some threat that has to be 'militarily addressed'), oil speculation goes up.....

Quote workingman:

The left hates rich people who have earned their money.

Well, for one, there would be many here (including myself) that would be a little set back on 'me' being called 'left'--at least, not 'left' in the usual manner that the liberals here like to use the term (although I do call myself a 'leftist libertarian'). Two, in line with how Thom Hartmann has described it, I don't call 'earning' sitting by the side of the swimming pool just waiting for the dividend checks to come in....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:Are you kidding? When it comes to the speculation in the oil markets? I don't think that it is coincidence that when there is destabilizing in the Middle East (usually due to some threat that has to be 'militarily addressed'), oil speculation goes up.....
I am referring to the purpose of speculation, not the causes of it.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 11:22 am

Well, for some (including me), destabilization in the Middle East by military means as the cause of increased speculation in the oil market is no small feat--or incidental consequence--concerning 'our government' putting such a military presence into that area. To say the least, it is NOT as George W. Bush claimed as it being for 'their freedom'......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote kerry:

Well, for one, there would be many here (including myself) that would be a little set back on 'me' being called 'left'--at least, not 'left' in the usual manner that the liberals here like to use the term (although I do call myself a 'leftist libertarian'). Two, in line with how Thom Hartmann has described it, I don't call 'earning' sitting by the side of the swimming pool just waiting for the dividend checks to come in....

That because you do not know or understand what a dividend check is. a dividend check is a payment from the company that you loaned money to through stock purchase which also makes you an owner of the company. You are to be paid for the loan and the fact that you are an owner of the company.

How can you be a leftist and a libertarian at the same time those ideologies are opposed to each other.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

That because you do not know or understand what a dividend check is. a dividend check is a payment from the company that you loaned money to through stock purchase which also makes you an owner of the company. You are to be paid for the loan and the fact that you are an owner of the company.

That's 'money making money'--not production and services making money. So, how do you define the term 'earned'. Even your example just shows that this person who's sitting by the side of the swimming pool waiting for the dividend checks just had to 'give a check out' (loan the money) to get it. How is that 'earning'--especially with respect to that person taking a direct part in any production or service?

Quote workingman:

How can you be a leftist and a libertarian at the same time those ideologies are opposed to each other.

Actually, my position is rather easy to follow if you can fathom the concepts. I am for 'prioritizing individual rights' in any imposition of power. I realize that it takes a government 'intent on doing so' to do that (with, as SMU Professor Joseph Kobylka describes in his Teaching Company lessons 'Cycles of American Political Thought', the traditional meaning for the term 'liberalism' being 'priority of the individual'--with government being responsive to that in two ways--in a laissez-faire passive way called 'minimal state liberalism'--and in a more involved way by supplementing individual choices and individual opportunities in 'active state liberalism'). And, unlike many of the libertarians here, I do NOT include 'corporations' as, in any way, representing the 'individual'--or 'individual rights'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Let them eat cake crowd get $14 from each of us,the question remain,how is all them "billions" in profit divided?? What do the public or workers or stockholder(small & big) see or get from the profits??

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

That because you do not know or understand what a dividend check is. a dividend check is a payment from the company that you loaned money to through stock purchase which also makes you an owner of the company. You are to be paid for the loan and the fact that you are an owner of the company.

That's 'money making money'--not production and services making money. So, how do you define the term 'earned'. Even your example just shows that this person who's sitting by the side of the swimming pool waiting for the dividend checks just had to 'give a check out' (loan the money) to get it. How is that 'earning'--especially with respect to that person taking a direct part in any production or service?

Quote workingman:

How can you be a leftist and a libertarian at the same time those ideologies are opposed to each other.

Actually, my position is rather easy to follow if you can fathom the concepts. I am for 'prioritizing individual rights' in any imposition of power. I realize that it takes a government 'intent on doing so' to do that (with, as SMU Professor Joseph Kobylka describes in his Teaching Company lessons 'Cycles of American Political Thought', the traditional meaning for the term 'liberalism' being 'priority of the individual'--with government being responsive to that in two ways--in a laissez-faire passive way called 'minimal state liberalism'--and in a more involved way by supplementing individual choices and individual opportunities in 'active state liberalism'). And, unlike many of the libertarians here, I do NOT include 'corporations' as, in any way, representing the 'individual'--or 'individual rights'....

Your discription of liberalism is the exact opposite of pretty every body else on the planet.

Liberalism as I have seen on this page is as follows: The government knows hoe to run your life better than you so they have to provide you with everything. To include but not limited to health care, retirement funding, what food you can and can not eat, a job but only if it is a union job, education throughout your entire life, housing, and anything else you think you deserve as long as they can tax it away from some one else.

Libertarians what tbe government to stick to the 18 jobs listed in the constitution and that is all.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

$30+ of a tank of gas is taxes

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:$30+ of a tank of gas is taxes
Only if that tank is 60+ gallons (average combined state and federal gas tax is about 49 cents per gallon)

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:
Quote CollegeConservative:$30+ of a tank of gas is taxes
Only if that tank is 60+ gallons (average combined state and federal gas tax is about 49 cents per gallon)

Yep and the oil companies profit is 8 cents per gallon so who is gouging you at the pump?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Libertarians what tbe government to stick to the 18 jobs listed in the constitution and that is all.

No, actually Libertarians simply believe that opression should be left in the hands of the private sector.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote workingman:

Your discription of liberalism is the exact opposite of pretty every body else on the planet.

Well, I quoted you the source that I got my definition from--and I pointed out that that definition is used in the traditional political sense of the word--not as it has been characterized in its modern general sense (which lacks a lot in specifying what that means--especially politically).

Quote workingman:

Liberalism as I have seen on this page is as follows: The government knows hoe to run your life better than you so they have to provide you with everything. To include but not limited to health care, retirement funding, what food you can and can not eat, a job but only if it is a union job, education throughout your entire life, housing, and anything else you think you deserve as long as they can tax it away from some one else.

I don't think that any form of liberalism has 'the government provide you everything'--but, as one option to how government approaches liberalism, it can supplement individual choices and individual opportunities as an 'active state liberalism'. Many would see that education offers more individual choices and individual opportunities and, so, they could rightly see it as a government action to offer that as an active right. Some could see that an unhealthy individual has less choices and opportunities so even health care could also be seen as a government action to offer that as an active right. Some could see that an individual that feels intimidated by criminal and enemy threats has their choices and opportunities limited against their will and could see that as a government action to offer police and military protection as an active right. But, what you do in good health, absent criminal impositions, with your education, is up to you. So, government doesn't 'provide it all'.

Now, to be sure, all those 'active state options' can be abused by government. Education can turn into indoctrination. The application of health care can be manipulated by political forces and for market advantages (in fact, I think it is). And, certainly, policing and military action, the most imposing options of all for government, can be administered in a manner to dictate and control behavior instead of endorsing individual opportunities and choices. But, if you think about it as I see this, all those possibilities of abuse are done in a manner that removes the priority of government to endorse individual rights--that's why it is always first and foremost as a motive to govern.

And, not all of liberalism should be approached in an active manner by government. Equal partners in contractual relationships require no government impositions. The very right to privacy implies no government impositions. And, as I've said, even all the above 'active state' actions may veer too much into doing more to impose against by, instead of endorse with, such government options and its individual rights priorities. So, this interchange between 'active state liberalism' and 'minimal state liberalism' is an ongoing, and critically assessing and reassessing, condition.

Quote workingman:

Libertarians what tbe government to stick to the 18 jobs listed in the constitution and that is all.

Actually, none of the framers of our constitution felt that 'the letter of the law' was to be followed more than 'the spirit of the law'--and the 'spirit of the law' was to define good government as securing and endorsing individual rights (just like Jefferson's Declaration of Independence indicated). The very discussion being had at the time of even adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was being argued that having written down the rights tends to limit those rights only to what is written (and 'the entire Constitution was there to endorse individual rights')--and strict adherence to only written law was not the purpose of the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Jefferson, himself, proposed that the Constitution be revisited, and revised completely, every generation (even calculated that to be 'every 19 years') so that each generation could determine in its own manner as to how such rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' were to be managed with government. If the intent of such libertarians are to be based on anything that our founders meant, that point of the Constitution, and its change in accordance with each generation's priorities, has to be considered--so, even as our founders intended it, nothing is 'written in stone' as if the biblical Ten Commandments. 'The spirit of the law' is much more important than 'the letter of the law' (apparently more then than it is now with how judicial issues were approached then vs. now--including jury nullification of written law and jury review of the constitutionality of any law)--and 'the spirit' takes an active, and ongoing, description and assessment to be 'agreed upon'....

Jefferson once wrote in a letter to John B. Colvin, dated September 20, 1810 (from my booklet, Jefferson--The Man, In His Own Words, edited by Robert C. Baron):

To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us, thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:I am saying that the government has 18 jobs listed for it in the constitution the military is one if them.

The US constitution has a place for the military but only for the purpose of National Defense. It is quite clear on the subject.

Unless Iran is inside the national borders of the US, I am missing how anything Iran does concerns our national defense.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote stwo:
Quote CollegeConservative:$30+ of a tank of gas is taxes
Only if that tank is 60+ gallons (average combined state and federal gas tax is about 49 cents per gallon)

And all gas taxes go towards building and maintaining roads, so we can burn more gas. Now collageConservatard, unless the free market is going to start raising their own personal charities to fund road construction, shut your pie hole.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote workingman:I am saying that the government has 18 jobs listed for it in the constitution the military is one if them.

The US constitution has a place for the military but only for the purpose of National Defense. It is quite clear on the subject.

Unless Iran is inside the national borders of the US, I am missing how anything Iran does concerns our national defense.

This is true, and I agree with that however the government should also stop providing all social programs there is no constitutional authority to provide those. The military for national defence could be used to slap a foreign power down from screwing with us.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility. Total freedom not economic slavery provided under socialism, or pure slavery under communism.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Problem is that, with respect to the basis of that spirit being defined by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (as was even recognized then), what you are describing is not the 'spirit of the law'. The 'spirit of the law' is defining good government as securing and endorsing individual rights such as 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'--and having all rightful actions of government directed in that manner--and decided accordingly. Again, from that above resource, Jefferson says this in a letter to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland, dated August 4, 1811:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

With respect to military options--and this may indeed tie into our military presence in the Middle East today--the founding fathers had a specific and direct aversion against standing armies. From their British examples in the colonies at the time, the founders saw that standing armies were usually manned by the riff-raff of society that were less intuned to any virtuous cause for which to fight than as an arm of an imposing empire onto unwilling subjects for their own gain. That was one reason why the Bill of Rights had the right to bear arms--as civilian militia members that were to be seen as the first line of defense from any common enemy threat before a formal regulated army could be brought together.

Our founders didn't want standing armies for the very reason that such armies were more proned to promote empire than to 'provide for the common defense'--and they weren't for promoting empire. It's actually in our Constitution--but, I doubt the supposed, so-called libertarian, fundamentalists to the Constitution of today will see it that way and adhere to those 'written words' as strictly as they were intended when the Constitution was written. It's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 in the delineated powers of Congress section--and you have to understand it from this historical context to get the point:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years:

'No...longer Term than two Years' in raising and supporting an Army. That's because those who wrote the Constitution wanted Congress to have to review the need for an army every two years that such an army were formed--and, they did that because they didn't want the United States to garner a standing army that they saw more likely to 'promote empire' than to 'provide for the common defense'. And, what are our armies in the Middle East doing now? Providing for the common defense--or promoting empire? There for 'their freedom'--or our markets' oil speculations?

What would the so-called libertarians promoting the 'original interpretation of the Constitution' say? In this instance, it does appear that the wisdom of our founders was beyond their age.....but, I doubt that the fundamentalist constitutionalists of today would see it as such, would they?

Even as recent as General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of the 'coming empire' of the 'military-industrial complex'.....and, now, what do we have? And, to go right along with it now is the burgeoning medical-industrial complex.....

And, the main characteristic of any empire is as an imposing force for its own gain.....just the opposite of a good government intent on securing and guaranteeing individual rights as its primary cause.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You are correct that the military is only supposed to be in place for two years and the building of an empire is a bad thing, there are many things that this government has done that it should not have done.

Yes a good government is supposed to provide security for its citizens but that does not equate to free food for the poor, free housing for the poor, and free anything else for what we consider the poor at the expense of the rich. They believed that the poor should take care of themselves just like everyone else. The founding fathers understood that they could not afford to pay for the lives of the poor without taking rights from the rich.

the founding fathers also warned against a paper money system as well as a central bank.

but we are off topic

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

You are correct that the military is only supposed to be in place for two years and the building of an empire is a bad thing, there are many things that this government has done that it should not have done.

Yes a good government is supposed to provide security for its citizens but that does not equate to free food for the poor, free housing for the poor, and free anything else for what we consider the poor at the expense of the rich. They believed that the poor should take care of themselves just like everyone else. The founding fathers understood that they could not afford to pay for the lives of the poor without taking rights from the rich.

the founding fathers also warned against a paper money system as well as a central bank.

but we are off topic

What is the alternative to free food for the poor? Number 1 is a huge increase in unwarranted deaths. Should we actually let people die in the street so as to not put a burden on the rich? Number 2 is a huge increase in crime and therefore a huge increase in incarceration costs that is passed on to the rest of society. One way or another the poor become a financial burden on everyone else so why not take care of that in the most humane way.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

I don't think we are that much off topic when you consider the role of the military-industrial complex and the oil speculation market. When you consider the impact of empire-endorsing forces in our own country up against the very tenets of government that this country was founded on. All of these things I think are very pertinent to our discussion.

As far as 'giving away to the poor', I am not for removing personal responsibility--in fact, just like what I think our founding fathers promoted, I recognize that a truly working democracy cannot do so in a manner that is not coherent to the integrity of its premise as such a personally responsible motive--which is that each citizen and each representative of the nation brings to government what they truly see as true to its intent. And, remember, I beleive the main intent of good government to be in securing and guaranteeing individual rights as I see the primary cause for government in this nation. And, our founding fathers realized that a truly representative democracy could not last long without such a virtue to its cause--and what virtue does the 'cause for empire' carry with respect to our 'democracy', etc.....all of this is worth pondering on a thread about 'market speculation'.....

Now, with that said, I don't think that 'leaving the poor--or anyone--out in the cold' was the intent or purpose of the founders of our government--as intent as I think that it should be in securing and endorsing every 'individual right'. I know the words of Thomas Jefferson best and I've already showed you how Jefferson defined the main purpose of good government as taking part in the 'care of human life and happiness'. Jefferson also had this to say (from that same source):

My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as it is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them and our duties to them.--Letter to Edward Coles, dated August 25, 1814

Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.---First Inaugural Address, dated March 4, 1801

Government's best option would perhaps be to insure any of the poor can at least be given the bare essentials to try to overcome the pressing odds against them to better themselves--such essentials as education, protection from criminal impositions, and health sustenance and care, as we have discussed before.

That doesn't mean remove all personal responsibility--and, it certainly doesn't mean 'do it for them' and have them circumvent all requirements of such responsibility for themselves. And, by removing any such requirements in virtue on behalf of any citizen (poor or rich), a government that endorses irresponsible behavior in its citizens tends to become an irresponsible government. As my brother is fond of saying that government sometimes behaves like: 'There is no limit to the amount of good that I can do with someone else's money.' But, that doesn't mean that there are no requirements in government at all--even as the founding fathers as Thomas Jefferson saw it.

As far as Jefferson's ideas on education, those are without question--Jefferson strongly promoted public education and said so on many occasions. From the same source:

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of the body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.---Letter to Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours, dated April 24, 1816

Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles which will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.--Letter to George Wythe, dated August 13, 1786

A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens, from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest so will it be the latest of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest.--Letter to Joseph C. Cabell, dated January 14, 1818

As well might it be urged that the wild and uncultivated tree, hitherto yielding sour and bitter fruit only, can never be made to yield better; yet we know that the grafting art implants a new tree on savage stock, producing what is most estimable both in kind and degree. Education, in like manner, engrafts a new man on the native stock, and improves what in his nature was vicious and perverse into qualities of virtue and social worth.--Report on University of Virginia, dated August 4, 1818

Education as I see Jefferson seeing it did not remove the personal responsibility it required as some today do seem to try to do--it endorsed it, perhaps even embellished it. 'From the richest to the poorest'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Jefferson also said that the general welfare clause was not a universal grant of power so congress can do anything it likes or believes it should do.

In his own writing he said he would not take the labor of one man to support another.

Yes he wanted public education provided by state and local governments not the federal. The same applied to feeding and clothing the poor. Now we have a huge over bloated central government that no longer guarantes individual freedom but looks for collective salavtion. Which by its very title means individuals no longer have freedom in exchange for everyone have missery.

The military is in the middle east right now and has been on and off since jefferson was president he sent marines into tripoli and diplomats into persia to fight the terriorist and secure are shippobg lanes. 1/3 of washingtons budget was spent desling with the middle east.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Congress CAN do anything it likes or believes it should do. That is the whole point of our Democratic Republic. We can make new laws supported by the majority. We can amend the constitution when supported by the majority. I am personally getting tired of everyone pulling up quotes from the past in order to further an agenda. We live in 2012 and our laws and constitution were meant to be a living, evolving system. There needs to be some changes or this country is doomed.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

You have to be careful what powers you give to the government. I say this because the current adminstration may not use the power for evil purposes but the next one might. Once they havd the power there is nothing to stop them.

Example: obama signed an expanded version of the 1950's preparedness order giving him the right to confiscate any resource he deems needed to complete the job. Now he may never need this but what is in place to stop the next guy from confiscating your food because he thinks he needs it.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor then it cannot save the few who are rich."

John F. Kennedy

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor then it cannot save the few who are rich."

John F. Kennedy

Any government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away. Gerald ford

I woukd rather not risk it and keep the government small slow and almost powerless as intended in the constitution.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Thank God we can now put an end to those silly arguments about "volunteer fire departments."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Thank God we can now put an end to those silly arguments about "volunteer fire departments."

Nope because if the city/county does not want to provide one and the taxpayers do not want to pay for it your only other choicr is volenteer.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Thank God we can now put an end to those silly arguments about "volunteer fire departments."

Nope because if the city/county does not want to provide one and the taxpayers do not want to pay for it your only other choicr is volenteer.

If the county or the Federal government decides not to build and maintain roads both locally and across the states, are you willing to volunteer your time to build them? Are you willing to volunteer your money to pay for building them? If nobody volunteers then your entire life will change dramatically.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Thank God we can now put an end to those silly arguments about "volunteer fire departments."

Nope because if the city/county does not want to provide one and the taxpayers do not want to pay for it your only other choicr is volenteer.

If the county or the Federal government decides not to build and maintain roads both locally and across the states, are you willing to volunteer your time to build them? Are you willing to volunteer your money to pay for building them? If nobody volunteers then your entire life will change dramatically.

They already do that while charging the u.s. Driver trilluons of dollars a year in gas taxes. Are roads should be.paved in gold with as much money the fed, state, and local governments spend on roads.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Thank God we can now put an end to those silly arguments about "volunteer fire departments."

Nope because if the city/county does not want to provide one and the taxpayers do not want to pay for it your only other choicr is volenteer.

If the county or the Federal government decides not to build and maintain roads both locally and across the states, are you willing to volunteer your time to build them? Are you willing to volunteer your money to pay for building them? If nobody volunteers then your entire life will change dramatically.

They already do that while charging the u.s. Driver trilluons of dollars a year in gas taxes. Are roads should be.paved in gold with as much money the fed, state, and local governments spend on roads.

You dodged the question. If we do away with the gas taxes are you willing to roll up your sleeves and grab a pick axe and or dig into your pockets to pay somebody else to do it? If you pay somebody else to do it do you think it will cost less than the taxes you pay?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:Ok lets stay with the spirit of the law, the libertarian wants the government to provide national security, protection from crime and fire all others are you responsibility.

Thank God we can now put an end to those silly arguments about "volunteer fire departments."

Nope because if the city/county does not want to provide one and the taxpayers do not want to pay for it your only other choicr is volenteer.

If the county or the Federal government decides not to build and maintain roads both locally and across the states, are you willing to volunteer your time to build them? Are you willing to volunteer your money to pay for building them? If nobody volunteers then your entire life will change dramatically.

They already do that while charging the u.s. Driver trilluons of dollars a year in gas taxes. Are roads should be.paved in gold with as much money the fed, state, and local governments spend on roads.

You dodged the question. If we do away with the gas taxes are you willing to roll up your sleeves and grab a pick axe and or dig into your pockets to pay somebody else to do it? If you pay somebody else to do it do you think it will cost less than the taxes you pay?

Yes the private sector coukd do it cheaper and better the only problem I see us what to do with all the toll money. another problem is how we force the government to actually follow the consitution and use the gas tax for post roads. With the terrible shape they are in they are not using those trillions for roads.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

The only reason the Straits of Hormuz are even a factor to any American is so Boosh and his cronies can make huge profits selling OPEC oil or pillaging it from other Middle Eastern countries. Making up half of US oil needs that could easily be replaced by homegrown energy farming. Wars, tankers leaking 15,000 gallons on purpose, not including the nexxon valdeze or BP's Gulf scam. This coercion and fear tactics are really old and boring, if it didn't actually kill Americans. As I am seeing more and more. Republicans are no longer in allegiance with the US. Their international corporate interest has made them all traitors and they should be treated as their German Nazi mentors. Sick. Gasoline is poison, but it is not higher priced due to crude oil shortages, Same scam Enron pulled on California gutting maintenance budgets for Enron owned electric companies. As anyone knows, gut the maintenance you won't be running long. Cars or Generators or gasoline refineries only run as well as they're maintained. The result was brown outs leading to Gray outs and Arno's in. Plus Enron charging 1000% price increases gouging Californians on their electric bills. Now the same scam raising gas prices only we have viable alternatives to OPEC except for republicans trying their damnedest to sabotage any effort to implement it. Hemp alone could replace the crude oil polyfiber clothing and the crude oil based poisons sprayed on cotton. The vegetable oil carbohydrate makes the same plastic as Sadamn's crude oil China bought to make their plastic flags sold at Wallmart republicans put more value in than the Constitution. Sick puppies these GOPerverts be.

Peek or Peekaboo - Crude Oil Still Sucks

HEMP FOR FUEL: Energy Farming in America

Should we rape Alaska?

Ban Fossil Fools for the Sake of the Children huffing it!

gasoline refineries shortage responsible for gas prices

EPA-induced refinery closures linked to high gas prices
The untold story behind soaring pump prices is that major U.S. refineries are going out of business and creating at least regional shortages thanks in no small part to costly EPA rules. Over just the past six months, three refineries supplying about half the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel to the East Coast have closed, including two owned by Sunoco Inc. They say they simply cannot make money anymore.

Top five things you need to know about high gas prices
The Senate will vote again today on a bill to repeal the $4 billion dollars a year that taxpayers give to oil companies. The bill’s Democratic sponsors argue that while taxpayers shell out $4 billion a year, all they get for it is higher gas prices, and the oil companies rake in record profits.
High gas prices are affecting every family, not only in pain at the pump, but in higher prices for everything from food to airfare. Republicans blame President Obama. Is the President really to blame for gas prices?

1. There is no connection between drilling and gas prices.
2. There is no shortage of oil, nor shortage of refineries.
Oil companies are manipulating gas supply to raise prices and profits.
3. Speculators on Wall Street are responsible for adding at least 58 cents to every gallon of gas.
4. Demand for oil is at record lows in the US, but record highs in the global market.
5. Oil companies are raking in billions in profits each month while getting taxpayer subsidies.

So, when you fill up today, be mindful of why you are paying so much at the pump.

How Gas Prices Work
The media can sometimes lead you to believe that the price of gas is based solely on the price of crude oil, but there are actually many factors that determine what you pay at the pump.

Refinery Closures Lead to Rising Gas Prices and Job Losses

So why are these refineries closing?

Basically, despite the very popular image of perpetually fat profits for the oil companies, the refining business has been historically poor. If a refinery often operates in the low single digit rates of return — or as has frequently been the case, loses money — oil companies will eventually shut them down. Even if other parts of the business are making money, they won’t keep funding a money loser.

But why do refineries struggle with profitability?

No relief in rising gasoline prices as refineries shut down

Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

All of the above beyond just oil By Matthew Garrington

Co-Director, Checks and Balances Project

As gas prices top $4/gallon in an election year, Americans are fed up with empty promises and cheap gimmicks. Who in their right mind buys Newt Gingrich’s claim that he can lower gas prices to $2.50/gallon?

So, who or what is to blame for high gasoline prices?

The Big Oil spin machine and the Republicans who received 88% of Big Oil campaign contributions would have you believe it’s the President’s conservation policies which aim to balance responsible energy development and the protection of our Great Outdoors.

The truth is that energy development and conservation is not a zero sum game. Under the Obama Administration, domestic oil drilling hit a record high, American oil production hit an eight-year high, domestic demand is at its lowest point in 17 years, and America stands as a net exporter of petroleum products.

The simplistic view of “drill here, drill now” has no credibility as a means to bring down the price of a gallon of gas. In fact, the Associated Press just ...

As gas prices top $4/gallon in an election year, Americans are fed up with empty promises and cheap gimmicks. Who in their right mind buys Newt Gingrich’s claim that he can lower gas prices to $2.50/gallon?

So, who or what is to blame for high gasoline prices?

The Big Oil spin machine and the Republicans who received 88% of Big Oil campaign contributions would have you believe it’s the President’s conservation policies which aim to balance responsible energy development and the protection of our Great Outdoors.

The truth is that energy development and conservation is not a zero sum game. Under the Obama Administration, domestic oil drilling hit a record high, American oil production hit an eight-year high, domestic demand is at its lowest point in 17 years, and America stands as a net exporter of petroleum products.

The simplistic view of “drill here, drill now” has no credibility as a means to bring down the price of a gallon of gas. In fact, the Associated Press just reported that increased oil drilling has never brought down gas prices.

When I studied Economics, one of the first things they taught was the Law of Supply and Demand and how it should affect price in a free market. This year, the price at the pump seemingly defies that law. Demand for oil and gas in America is down and production is up. But that hasn’t prevented prices from surging, and oil industry profits surging right along with them.

To be clear, supply and demand is one factor at play – but on a global level. The economic progress of China and India, as well as the swelling appetite for oil that comes with that growth, adds to an increase in oil prices. Clearly supply and demand are not the whole story though.

As one expert at Oppenheimer & Co recently noted, “Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices.”

That sentiment is echoed by some unlikely sources. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson recently stated that oil speculation and uncertainty over Iran are driving up the current price at the pump. Citing Goldman Sachs, Forbes reported this past February that oil speculation was adding $0.56 to the price at the pump.

Something else that seems fishy is that while global demand is going up and gas prices surging, Big Oil’s refineries in the United States are cutting back.

So while Americans struggle to pay for the cost of these high energy prices, the oil and gas industry made nearly $137 billion in profits last year. Make no mistake. Oil companies don’t want lower gas prices because it means less profit.

So what is there to do?

President Obama is correct when he says there is no “quick fix” to gas prices. Congress needs to end taxpayer handouts to big oil and reinvest those funds in American energy innovation and clean energy solutions. We need to make our cars and trucks more fuel efficient, so American families can cut energy costs and travel farther on less oil. Congress and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should crack down on Wall Street speculators to stop their gambling from artificially inflating the price at the pump.

We need an all of the above energy strategy that goes beyond oil. Unless we truly end our dependence on oil, foreign or domestic, we will continue to be vulnerable to global events and market manipulation by Big Oil and their friends on Wall Street. Read More

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 12:39 am

Where does that opening premise of $14 of oil pricing comes from speculators come from?

I would agree that speculators have an influence on pricing that effects pricing only in the short term and only a few percent.

Speculators do not use oil? The demand that they create is only a temporary function as oil is sold in contracts that expire. At some point these speculators need to sell the oil contracts which they own to people who are actually going to refine that oil. Those refiners do not wish to pay any more than they have to. These same oil refiners buy their own contracts as well to hedge what they buy on the spot market.

What drives oil pricing higher or lower besides demand. Obviously, supply is one factor but it is not the only factor. Much of oil demand is from overseas and as the Euro has recently lost much of its value compared to the oil you will notice that oil prices have fallen. You can also see that our own monetary policies such as quantitative easing which devalue the dollar drove oil prices higher.

How can we decrease oil prices? It really is relatively simple. A strong monetary policy where inflation is low. An increase in exploration and drilling will increase supply. Lesser regulation will not only decrease costs but will increase the speed at which supply is increased. Last but not least lower gasoline taxes will obviously lower the price at the pump.

So let's stop making random claims and blaming things on speculators or oil companies when oil prices are not dictated by either of them.

abospaum's picture
abospaum
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 4:02 am

Hi from Italy, here the price of gas is close to 2Euro per liter (almost 10$ per gal). Who do we have to blame for that? Consider that around 60% of the price is just taxes. if you are screwed...we are totaly ruined and in very, very dire straits.

augluc's picture
augluc
Joined:
Nov. 6, 2010 9:20 am

Currently Chatting

Is George Zimmerman Right?

It's time to listen to George Zimmerman. Seriously, and I'll explain in a minute.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system