That would be the point of the first panel. See the blue paper with the word "Congress" on it?
People think that the president is the one that controls gas prices and manipulating them in order to make Americans sour on oil. As the cartoon shows, it's a variety of factors, including the federal government.
In other words, the President's actions do have an impact on the economy and energy prices. It's not as direct as pulling on a lever, but to imply (as this cartoon does) that the President doesn't do things that have an effect Simply. Isn't. True.
The simple fact is that the Federal Government and the President cannot create a good economy, but they can (and do) create a bad one. Who blocked (and continues to block) drilling in the Gulf and other parts of the country? The Office of the President. Do you suppose that has a direct on, oh I don't know, Drilling?!? And therefore, by artificially limiting supply, a significant effect on energy prices? He doesn't have to something as silly as pull a physical lever to do that. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper.
But why am I wasting my time trying to tell you something you have repeatedly gainsaid (with no logic reason or facts to back it up) for years? We're getting into time wasting territory again.
It's not as direct as pulling on a lever, but to imply (as this cartoon does) that the President doesn't do things that have an effect Simply. Isn't. True.
Of course he does things that have an effect but he is one of many players in what has an effect. How much influence does he have? I'd say considerably less than OPEC, oil speculators and events in the Middle East, wouldn't you? Certainly, less than Congress.
The simple fact is that the Federal Government and the President cannot create a good economy,
Not really true. I'd say the Grand Coulee Damn is a great example of creating wealth and helping the economy in a very good way. The GI Bill would be another example. Again, they are simply a key player which means that they also can't "create" a bad one..simply contribute to adverse affects as part of a chorus. That's what happened in 2008.
Who blocked (and continues to block) drilling in the Gulf and other parts of the country? The Office of the President.Do you suppose that has a direct on, oh I don't know, Drilling?!?
As seems to be the case these days, you aren't being honest.
Scroll down to the section title "Pipeline Piffle."
Meanwhile, the company says that it began construction this very month on the project’s southern leg, which it now calls the “Gulf Coast Pipeline Project.” Obama has publicly embraced that portion, a 485-mile segment of 36-inch pipe that will carry petroleum from Cushing, Okla., south to Nederland, Texas, to supply Gulf Coast refineries.
Further, the president hasn't cut or inhibited oil drilling. In fact, he's continued Bush era policies.
Once again, Mark hasn't read his own links. From the NPR story:
"According to Mulva, more rigs are drilling for oil in the United States today than have been for 25 years.
But here is where the criticism of President Obama comes in: Mulva stresses that most of these rigs are on private property. They are drilling into places like the Bakken formation, which lies under parts of North Dakota and Montana.
"Had this been government land, we would likely still be awaiting drilling permits or fighting lawsuits from NGOs or outright drilling bans enacted from Congress," Mulva says."
Nah, the first panel should be labeled, "What people think the President does". The second panel should be, What the President Actually Does". Oh wait, according to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, that's racist. I hereby denounce myself.
Of course I read it, CM. NPR is a non-biased source that presents a whole spectrum of information. I'd expect the same type of link from you to support your assertions.
Take what Mulva said (obviously he is a biased source) and include this information.
Did you read the the actual DOI report as opposed to the press release? It seems to make clear that even though a company has secured a lease, that doesn't mean it can do anything until it has also secured permits to do actual exploration. And, of course, after that, if exploration shows enough oil able to be economically reached, permits to begin production. And then you can start the process of drilling for real. All of that takes years. "Unused leases" is the amount not currently being explored nor produced, but doesn't show what's waiting for permits. There's also other factors at play, of course. The leases are for 5 years, but perhaps the company doesn't believe that at current prices, what's likely to be there isn't worth exploring so much as other areas (remember, there aren't unlimited rigs or trained people, and it takes years to build up (and the market can collapse out from under you very quickly -- the boom and bust cycles are all too familiar to Texans)). In effect, some of those leases are 'reservations' in case prices go up so high that the risk becomes acceptable. Possibly also to deny some areas to other companies. Now, as other links we have explored have made clear, where are the vast majority of the rigs drilling (more rigs than have been active in the US for 25 years) operating? On private lands. Why? They can drill now without the long scheduling delays and uncertainties that are effectively in place for drilling on Federal lands (and delays and uncertainty increases risk). Some of these areas, like North Dakota and parts of Texas, were barely started 5 years ago.
Now riddle me this: why do you automatically dismiss anything from the industry side? As you will dismiss this, no doubt.
There's no doubt Obama could be a lot worse, but he could also be a whole hell of a lot better. That's damning with faint praise, but it is what it is.
It says "Forbidden" when I try to go to it. Not sure what that means.
why do you automatically dismiss anything from the industry side?
Not true. The last time we talked about this, I put up a quote from the EXXON chief who talked about the problems of speculation.
There's no doubt that the federal government isn't perfect. Far from it. But it's not this evil monolith holding back progress. That's where I get frustrated. More frustrating is that the oil industry isn't made up entirely of Dagny Taggert.
Oh well. Don't know how to fix that. The link is to a picture of Obama in a golf cart.
Okay, Mark, yes, you did approvingly quote an industry person on something. Because he said something you agree with. If it doesn't match your pre-conceptions, though, you dismiss it without thought. I notice you don't address the substantive issues I brought up.
Nor do I think the industry is all "Dagny Taggerts". I know very well how business operates, and there's a lot of badness out there. But you completely dismissed the one industry explanation out of your own NPR link, while citing a government press release.
15 comments:
Are claiming that Federal Government actions—as directed by Congress and the President—have absolutely no effect on the economy and energy prices?
No, I'm not. But I think you've missed the point of this cartoon.
Somebody is missing something here. Let's find out who.
No, I'm not.
Then would agree that the actions of the Federal Government do have an effect on the economy and energy prices?
That would be the point of the first panel. See the blue paper with the word "Congress" on it?
People think that the president is the one that controls gas prices and manipulating them in order to make Americans sour on oil. As the cartoon shows, it's a variety of factors, including the federal government.
In other words, the President's actions do have an impact on the economy and energy prices. It's not as direct as pulling on a lever, but to imply (as this cartoon does) that the President doesn't do things that have an effect Simply. Isn't. True.
The simple fact is that the Federal Government and the President cannot create a good economy, but they can (and do) create a bad one. Who blocked (and continues to block) drilling in the Gulf and other parts of the country? The Office of the President. Do you suppose that has a direct on, oh I don't know, Drilling?!? And therefore, by artificially limiting supply, a significant effect on energy prices? He doesn't have to something as silly as pull a physical lever to do that. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper.
But why am I wasting my time trying to tell you something you have repeatedly gainsaid (with no logic reason or facts to back it up) for years? We're getting into time wasting territory again.
It's not as direct as pulling on a lever, but to imply (as this cartoon does) that the President doesn't do things that have an effect Simply. Isn't. True.
Of course he does things that have an effect but he is one of many players in what has an effect. How much influence does he have? I'd say considerably less than OPEC, oil speculators and events in the Middle East, wouldn't you? Certainly, less than Congress.
The simple fact is that the Federal Government and the President cannot create a good economy,
Not really true. I'd say the Grand Coulee Damn is a great example of creating wealth and helping the economy in a very good way. The GI Bill would be another example. Again, they are simply a key player which means that they also can't "create" a bad one..simply contribute to adverse affects as part of a chorus. That's what happened in 2008.
Who blocked (and continues to block) drilling in the Gulf and other parts of the country? The Office of the President.Do you suppose that has a direct on, oh I don't know, Drilling?!?
As seems to be the case these days, you aren't being honest.
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/republican-retreads-from-tampa/
Scroll down to the section title "Pipeline Piffle."
Meanwhile, the company says that it began construction this very month on the project’s southern leg, which it now calls the “Gulf Coast Pipeline Project.” Obama has publicly embraced that portion, a 485-mile segment of 36-inch pipe that will carry petroleum from Cushing, Okla., south to Nederland, Texas, to supply Gulf Coast refineries.
Further, the president hasn't cut or inhibited oil drilling. In fact, he's continued Bush era policies.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145719179/foreign-oil-imports-drop-as-u-s-drilling-ramps-up
So, your statements aren't accurate given these facts.
Once again, Mark hasn't read his own links. From the NPR story:
"According to Mulva, more rigs are drilling for oil in the United States today than have been for 25 years.
But here is where the criticism of President Obama comes in: Mulva stresses that most of these rigs are on private property. They are drilling into places like the Bakken formation, which lies under parts of North Dakota and Montana.
"Had this been government land, we would likely still be awaiting drilling permits or fighting lawsuits from NGOs or outright drilling bans enacted from Congress," Mulva says."
Nah, the first panel should be labeled, "What people think the President does". The second panel should be, What the President Actually Does". Oh wait, according to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, that's racist. I hereby denounce myself.
That link doesn't work, Larry.
Of course I read it, CM. NPR is a non-biased source that presents a whole spectrum of information. I'd expect the same type of link from you to support your assertions.
Take what Mulva said (obviously he is a biased source) and include this information.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/06/news/economy/oil_drilling_leases/index.htm
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/DOI-Releases-Report-on-Unused-Oil-and-Gas-Leases.cfm
Now, take all of it together and what do you think? Is the president really that bad on energy?
Huh. Link works for me.
Did you read the the actual DOI report as opposed to the press release? It seems to make clear that even though a company has secured a lease, that doesn't mean it can do anything until it has also secured permits to do actual exploration. And, of course, after that, if exploration shows enough oil able to be economically reached, permits to begin production. And then you can start the process of drilling for real. All of that takes years. "Unused leases" is the amount not currently being explored nor produced, but doesn't show what's waiting for permits. There's also other factors at play, of course. The leases are for 5 years, but perhaps the company doesn't believe that at current prices, what's likely to be there isn't worth exploring so much as other areas (remember, there aren't unlimited rigs or trained people, and it takes years to build up (and the market can collapse out from under you very quickly -- the boom and bust cycles are all too familiar to Texans)). In effect, some of those leases are 'reservations' in case prices go up so high that the risk becomes acceptable. Possibly also to deny some areas to other companies. Now, as other links we have explored have made clear, where are the vast majority of the rigs drilling (more rigs than have been active in the US for 25 years) operating? On private lands. Why? They can drill now without the long scheduling delays and uncertainties that are effectively in place for drilling on Federal lands (and delays and uncertainty increases risk). Some of these areas, like North Dakota and parts of Texas, were barely started 5 years ago.
Now riddle me this: why do you automatically dismiss anything from the industry side? As you will dismiss this, no doubt.
There's no doubt Obama could be a lot worse, but he could also be a whole hell of a lot better. That's damning with faint praise, but it is what it is.
Huh. Link works for me.
It says "Forbidden" when I try to go to it. Not sure what that means.
why do you automatically dismiss anything from the industry side?
Not true. The last time we talked about this, I put up a quote from the EXXON chief who talked about the problems of speculation.
There's no doubt that the federal government isn't perfect. Far from it. But it's not this evil monolith holding back progress. That's where I get frustrated. More frustrating is that the oil industry isn't made up entirely of Dagny Taggert.
Larry, I get "Forbidden" on that link too.
Oh well. Don't know how to fix that. The link is to a picture of Obama in a golf cart.
Okay, Mark, yes, you did approvingly quote an industry person on something. Because he said something you agree with. If it doesn't match your pre-conceptions, though, you dismiss it without thought. I notice you don't address the substantive issues I brought up.
Nor do I think the industry is all "Dagny Taggerts". I know very well how business operates, and there's a lot of badness out there. But you completely dismissed the one industry explanation out of your own NPR link, while citing a government press release.
Were you trying to link here?
Yeah, the 2nd picture.
Post a Comment