Considering the ****hole we were in just before Bush left office I'd say pretty damn good!
There's no substance to the energy independence argument. International firms produce, refine and sell oil on the international market at international market prices. Even with more production and refining happening in the US, the supplies are still subject to the international economy, including price swings due to middle eastern oil production/sales. It doesn't matter where the oil is coming from: when there is a sharp drop in supply, oil prices will spike. So energy independence is impossible, for any country.
LOL....sure...your view of "Obama is stopping US oil production" is not an ideological argument.
That's a good number. What exactly did Obama have to do with it though?
"The bad buck stops there, the good one doesn't".......or....."You didn't (build) earn that!"
The why is an increase in US oil production a major factor in this recent growth?
Except I didn't do that. I personally don't think the economy is all that bad. In fact, I thinks its quite good. It is not growing as rapidly as I think it should but the economy overall is quite strong. I give credit for that to the American free market system, not Obama.Isn't it great that you can blame Obama for a bad economy and in the same breath deny Obama any credit when things improve?
There's no substance to the energy independence argument. International firms produce, refine and sell oil on the international market at international market prices. Even with more production and refining happening in the US, the supplies are still subject to the international economy, including price swings due to middle eastern oil production/sales. It doesn't matter where the oil is coming from: when there is a sharp drop in supply, oil prices will spike. So energy independence is impossible, for any country.
Actually, right now and for the past few years, the GOP controlled House has had more of an impact on US demand than the POTUS.
Again, the US House has had more impact on US demand. An ideological view that ignores the global macro realities.
Um, the Dick Cheney is notorious for his rejection of reducing oil consumption, and like you, wants to focus on supply.
From a national security perspective, you are incorrect - there are many benefits of energy independence, or, at least, dependence upon non-psychotic dictatorships. If you disagree, feel free to question Eastern Europe about their relations with Russia.
From an economic standpoint, GDP is increased (note: title of the thread) when exports rise relative to imports. So reducing imports of oil does indeed increase GDP relative to baseline, especially in the context of rising domestic production.
From a supply/demand standpoint, increasing supply also reduces gas prices relative to the baseline of where they would otherwise be, given demand.
So...... in fact, it turns out, there is quite a lot of substance to the energy independence argument.
Isn't it great that you can blame Obama for a bad economy and in the same breath deny Obama any credit when things improve?
Yes, the framing of the argument, ignoring any causes of any past decisions, is ideologically driven. But go ahead and continue to reduce your argument to avoid the appearance of ideology.No. The fact that the Obama administration has sought to restrict and slow domestic energy production is history, not ideological.
Your semantic nonsense shot itself in the foot, partisanship (which your posts are ironically filled with) is ideological.Similarly, your inability to accurately cite what was stated is unsurprising and partisan, but not ideological.
Your argument, as usual, needs work.Hope that helps.
Yes, the framing of the argument, ignoring any causes of any past decisions, is ideologically driven.
But go ahead and continue to reduce your argument to avoid the appearance of ideology.
synonyms: | beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; Moredoctrine, creed, credo, faith, teaching, theory, philosophy; tenets, canon(s); conviction(s), persuasion; informalism "the party has to jettison outdated ideology and give up its stranglehold on power" |
Uh....the context was economic activity, specifically demand....and the GOP House has been THE stumbling block to any and all significant measures to increase demand.:lol: the House can't do anything - you can't govern from one half of one branch of the three branches of the Federal Government. Furthermore, this President has overseen a vast expansion of the Executive into Legislative powers.
You are still ignoring that macro environment drives the decisions whether to frack or not, those far outstrip what the admin has or has not done in regard to fracking. Further, local and state govt decisions on the banning or allowance of fracking has had much more direct effect on whether it happens or not....at all. And again, as the price of oil comes down, the economics of fracking become less profitable. From what I have read, it only makes sense in the lowest cost areas when the price remains above $80-$85....that is when the locals allow the depletion/polluting of ground water and the burning off of NG (no capture), etc....the "externalities" that some want to ignore.which is A) false, B) does not speak to whether or not businesses were succeeding in spite of the Administration, and C) does not speak to the specific example of the Fracking industry, which is.
I know you are with the Dick (again, "not" ideologically driven!), and are want to ignore externalities (they aren't cheap).I'm on board with Dick then. I could care less about which form of energy we are consuming - only that it is plentiful, cheap, and safe.
Uh....the context was economic activity, specifically demand....and the GOP House has been THE stumbling block to any and all significant measures to increase demand.
You are still ignoring that macro environment that drives the decisions whether to frack or not, those far outstrip what the admin has or has not done in regard to fracking.
This is good news.
Hey, though, how does this compare to other Recoveries?
Exactly right.It doesn't, as the 2008 - 2009 economic & financial crisis was a once in a generation event.
I'm sure you can find some out of context absolutist "statement" to "justify" your ideologically driven argument....of this I have no doubt.Let me get this straight. Are you arguing that referencing the Administrations' stated goal of hampering US energy production is an ideological argument?
Dude, you failed to show that your argument is not ideologically driven....or that partisanship is not at base about ideology.Dude.
You fail.
I'm sure you can find some out of context absolutist "statement" to "justify" your ideologically driven argument....of this I have no doubt.
Dude, you failed to show that your argument is not ideologically driven....or that partisanship is not at base about ideology.
Whu...? I thought the GOP crowing about limiting the budget to near austerity levels....was being done by the GOP.Ah. You are blaiming the House for solidifying astronomically high spending rates because they didn't agree with the President to implement super astronomically high spending rates? :lol: yeah. That'll fly.
If you are admitting what I said, I'm fine with that. The "ramping" was emergency short term increases in response to the bag Bush handed off.POTUS ramped up federal expenditures, and the House GOP at best stopped him from doing any more. So even your own argument leaves POTUS holding the bag on that front
Irony again, there was never an argument that "fracking failed" in any aspect from me. Maybe you need to brush up on your own advice.I think you are either deliberately misreading, or suffering from short-term memory loss. The point is not that US Fracking has failed, it is that it has succeeded in spite of the President.
Except I didn't do that. I personally don't think the economy is all that bad. In fact, I thinks its quite good. It is not growing as rapidly as I think it should but the economy overall is quite strong. I give credit for that to the American free market system, not Obama.
That is assuming that you have either a clear, partisan free non ideological driven historical analysis.....and when you admit that your argument has the Dick as guiding base....well frankly duder...it is not.Dude. If I was attempting to explain how things happened, that would be an ideological argument. Here I am pointing out that things happened. That is a historical argument.
Um, you are leaving out the fact that the partisan "group" is united ....wait for it.....under an ideology.You seem to have confused "ideology" with "partisanship".
Partisanship is about loyalty to a group. Ideology is a set of beliefs.
That is assuming that you have either a clear, partisan free non ideological driven historical analysis.....and when you admit that your argument has the Dick as guiding base....well frankly duder...it is not.
Wow, as if your posts are not designed to express your ideological views and to attempt to skewer the opposition.:roll: whatever. Enjoy your troll.
Wow, as if your posts are not designed to express your ideological views and to attempt to skewer the opposition.
FFS, if you think I'm just trolling, report me....otherwise, it is just the last refuge of a coward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?