Hillary vows to break up OPEC

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I thought I made it clear by bolding what you said and what she said. She never said about taking OPEC out, or breaking up the organization completely. She said taking it on, or challenging them with anti-monopoly laws and pressuring them with WTO and all the fair trade agreement within WTO. But according to you, and I quote "she's promising to take them out. "

And so what if OPEC don't product all the oil in the market? The market is still looking at their action and signal to decide on what the oil price. You should know the signal is as important and sometime more important then the actual action in a speculative market. OPEC impact this market greatly simply by giving out signals on what action they will be taking just because they are still the largest oil producing body in the world.

Split hairs all you want, her actual words speak for themselves:

"We're going to go right at OPEC," she told supporters in Merrillville, Indiana. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they're going to produce and what price they're going to put it at.

"That's not a market. That's a monopoly," she said, saying she would use US anti-monopoly laws as well as the World Trade Organisation to take on OPEC.

She is CLEARLY saying she is going to try to break up OPEC like Ma Bell or Standard Oil.

Let's contrast Hillary's populist rhetoric with the reasoned forward-thinking response from Obama's campaign:

It's brought up every four years. Suspending the gas tax to give families relief at the pump. It sounds good on its face, but when you get into the details, this is a band-aid on a broken leg.

Sen. Obama knows we need relief from the tyranny of foreign oil. The price of oil hit $120 a barrel today. Americans have never paid more for gas and the demand for gas has never been higher. Family budgets are being stretched every time the family car goes empty.

The gas tax holiday is not the answer. In the end you'll have saved half a gas tank's worth of money and that's if the oil companies don't raise their prices in compensation for the drop. The money from the gas tax goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and this tax holiday would drain money from there, putting in jeopardy not only roads and bridges in need of repair, but the good paying jobs that go along with them.

Sen. Obama knows the only way we'll pay less at the pump is if we use less. He has proposed raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, invest in alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, and refit our buildings to become more energy efficient. In short, there are many reasons why the recent gas-tax suspension plan floated around by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton is wrong for Oregon.

edit: BTW, this issue especially hits hard here in Oregon, where we have several large highway projects that need doing. Here in Portland alone, those include the Sellwood bridge, which desperately needs replacement before it fails, and the obsolete Interstate bridge, considered one of the worst bottlenecks in the entire Interstate highway system. This "holiday" means a cut in funding at a time when we desperately need it.
So if Hillary wins Indiana today with this rhetoric, she does so at the cost of losing Oregon on the 20th by an even larger margin.

 

[imported_Imp]

Wonder what the World Bank or WTO would say about that...

 

[Slew Foot]

Isnt it common knowledge by now that Hillary will say anything to get a vote?

 

[StageLeft]

Haha, her campaign flounders and she gets more desperate.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is just getting sad.

 

[Fern]

Dems in general, and Hillary supportes in particular - you often post about how the world hates us, and it's our fault, for inflicting our will on other countries.

Please tell us how Hillary's proposal is any different. Last time I checked, OPEC was a group of foreign countries.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: rchiu

I thought I made it clear by bolding what you said and what she said. She never said about taking OPEC out, or breaking up the organization completely. She said taking it on, or challenging them with anti-monopoly laws and pressuring them with WTO and all the fair trade agreement within WTO. But according to you, and I quote "she's promising to take them out. "

And so what if OPEC don't product all the oil in the market? The market is still looking at their action and signal to decide on what the oil price. You should know the signal is as important and sometime more important then the actual action in a speculative market. OPEC impact this market greatly simply by giving out signals on what action they will be taking just because they are still the largest oil producing body in the world.

Just a quick couple of questions for you....

1. What good is it to go to the WTO to try to sanction or fine OPEC when more than 1/3 of it isn't part of the WTO?

2. What will be different this time?

 

[jonks]

And if Obama gave the same speech you'd be applauding. Sad.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: Vic
With her back against the wall in today's election, it seems there is no end to the populist rhetoric and bald-faced pandering lies that Hillary will resort to. Is this really the kind of person we want as our next President?
Forget about the fact that OPEC doesn't control oil prices or that the US has no control over this international organization, she's promising to take them out.
Forget that the gas tax holiday is a shell game at best, economists are ivory tower elitists.
Forget that the NRA hates her as the antichrist, she attacks Obama for his stance on guns.
Forget that Bill pushed through NAFTA and China Free Trade Act while President, she was always against them, even though no one recalls ever hearing her say so at the time.
Sniper fire in Bosnia... on and on and on.

It's bad enough when our politicians secretly deceive us, how can anyone tolerate Hillary's blatant bald-faced lying? Have we not learned our lessons from the past?

To the people of North Carolina and Indiana: please cast your vote for Obama and put an end to this insanity today.

I can only wish this would happen but she will probably win Indiana and this will continue on. I don't think I have as much faith in the American people as Barack. To quote George Carlin:

"Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that."

I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with McCain as president.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if Obama gave the same speech you'd be applauding. Sad.

No, I wouldn't. What's sad is that you actually believe that.
Obama has my support in large part because he does not stoop to this kind of rhetoric and political tactics. Were he to take up these kind of positions, he would lose my support.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Vic

It's brought up every four years. Suspending the gas tax to give families relief at the pump. It sounds good on its face, but when you get into the details, this is a band-aid on a broken leg.

Sen. Obama knows we need relief from the tyranny of foreign oil. The price of oil hit $120 a barrel today. Americans have never paid more for gas and the demand for gas has never been higher. Family budgets are being stretched every time the family car goes empty.

The gas tax holiday is not the answer. In the end you'll have saved half a gas tank's worth of money and that's if the oil companies don't raise their prices in compensation for the drop. The money from the gas tax goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and this tax holiday would drain money from there, putting in jeopardy not only roads and bridges in need of repair, but the good paying jobs that go along with them.

Sen. Obama knows the only way we'll pay less at the pump is if we use less. He has proposed raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, invest in alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, and refit our buildings to become more energy efficient. In short, there are many reasons why the recent gas-tax suspension plan floated around by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton is wrong for Oregon.

edit: BTW, this issue especially hits hard here in Oregon, where we have several large highway projects that need doing. Here in Portland alone, those include the Sellwood bridge, which desperately needs replacement before it fails, and the obsolete Interstate bridge, considered one of the worst bottlenecks in the entire Interstate highway system. This "holiday" means a cut in funding at a time when we desperately need it.
So if Hillary wins Indiana today with this rhetoric, she does so at the cost of losing Oregon on the 20th by an even larger margin.

Yeah continue to talk about how Hillary's plan is gonna hurt roads and bridges when she clearly stated that she will have oil company pay for the plan. That's the main difference between her plan and McCain's plan.

And good luck with Obama's plan making any impact on the gas price RIGHT NOW, when people are hurting with gas/food price at all time high and the current slow economic state. And good luck with Obama's plan making long term impact when countries like China and India double, triple their oil consumption, while organization like OPEC still wield their power to control oil prices based on their political interest.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
I always wondered what it would be like to have an honest president. Something even close would probably be mind-boggling.

I've always wondered what it would be like to have a population too smart for Hillary swill.

She is what we deserve and she knows it. She has no organic shame at all. Her point is that she can be the worst piece of shit in the world and that is what will win. We elect garbage. It's our way.

We will reek or we will change. It's our decision.

It's a shame when you think about it. The Founders of this country endless stressed the need for education in democracy. Near the end of his life, Jefferson claimed to be more proud of establishing the University of Virginia than of writing the Declaration of Independence. They knew that in order to entrust democracy and a government of the people to the people, that the people would need to be educated and informed in order to make the right decisions.
How well are we living up the that ideal today?

Obviously, anyone who is educated is also an elitist. Let's forsake education so that we can make truly informed decisions. Can't believe people are falling for this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeah continue to talk about how Hillary's plan is gonna hurt roads and bridges when she clearly stated that she will have oil company pay for the plan. That's the main difference between her plan and McCain's plan.

And good luck with Obama's plan making any impact on the gas price RIGHT NOW, when people are hurting with gas/food price at all time high and the current slow economic state. And good luck with Obama's plan making long term impact when countries like China and India double, triple their oil consumption, while organization like OPEC still wield their power to control oil prices based on their political interest.

Wow... what flavor was the kool-aid?

 

[Genx87]

Hahaha I'd love to know how she plans to take them out. Or will she push them to a ban like the 70's?

You know if Hillary does get elected with a rubbstamp congress. I'd almost be willing to take 4 years of that crap as it would make the downfall of the Republican party seem tame and make a lot of whiners on this board eat crow.

Sadly there are many people who will vote today who bought into it.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Yeah continue to talk about how Hillary's plan is gonna hurt roads and bridges when she clearly stated that she will have oil company pay for the plan. That's the main difference between her plan and McCain's plan.

And good luck with Obama's plan making any impact on the gas price RIGHT NOW, when people are hurting with gas/food price at all time high and the current slow economic state. And good luck with Obama's plan making long term impact when countries like China and India double, triple their oil consumption, while organization like OPEC still wield their power to control oil prices based on their political interest.

Saying she'll have the oil companies pay for the plan is completely different than having a viable plan of action of actually making it so. Creating a cap on profit margin will do nothing as the oil companies are going to raise prices even further. You're an MBA degree holder, you should know better than anyone that costs are always passed down to the consumer. I don't understand how someone who claims to be as intelligent as you can believe that a higher tax rate on profit margins that exceed a cap will actually hinder companies that provide an inelastic product.

Also, feel free to stop using heartfelt, emotional pleas in your statements as it's already been acknowledged that both plans are meant to tug on people's heart strings in the hopes of overriding their better judgment.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Saying she'll have the oil companies pay for the plan is completely different than having a viable plan of action of actually making it so. Creating a cap on profit margin will do nothing as the oil companies are going to raise prices even further. You're an MBA degree holder, you should know better than anyone that costs are always passed down to the consumer. I don't understand how someone who claims to be as intelligent as you can believe that a higher tax rate on profit margins that exceed a cap will actually hinder companies that provide an inelastic product.

Also, feel free to stop using heartfelt, emotional pleas in your statements as it's already been acknowledged that both plans are meant to tug on people's heart strings in the hopes of overriding their better judgment.

There has always been strict regulations on monopolized companies on the rate they can charge. Look into Telecomm, cable, utility companies. Same thing can be done to the oil companies.

And who are you to say clinton's plan is meant to play to their heart and not to provide them with any real positive benefits? You don't know that, nobody in this forum knows for sure that oil company will simply raise price if Clinton's proposal is passed. But everybody seems to attack her regardless, assuming it's a fact that her plan won't help anyone. I just don't agree with that, that's all.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: rchiu
There has always been strict regulations on monopolized companies on the rate they can charge. Look into Telecomm, cable, utility companies. Same thing can be done to the oil companies.

And who are you to say clinton's plan is meant to play to their heart and not to provide them with any real positive benefits? You don't know that, nobody in this forum knows for sure that oil company will simply raise price if Clinton's proposal is passed. But everybody seems to attack her regardless, assuming it's a fact that her plan won't help anyone. I just don't agree with that, that's all.

Heavy regulation of profit margins of oligopolies has never prevented those same oligopolies from transferring the cost to consumers. That is why there was a period where people were pushing for their breakup instead because prices were still being maintained and increased at a rate that did not help the consumers on the bottom.

Clinton's plan is meant to play on the heart strings of poorer people for two reasons. First, there's no way for this plan to get through so it's basically alot of rhetoric to make people feel like she's on their side. Second, even if by some chance the plan goes through, you forget that the extreme poor who could actually benefit from $30 in the pocket over two months are not going to have cars and most likely use some form of public transportation. The poorer people that do own cars and use gas enough to actually garner the $30 worth of savings are not in a position that $30 is going to make a huge or any difference at all. There are so many considerations that must be taken into account when looking at this plan that simply looking at it as $30 is $30 in the pocket is disingenuous and obviously designed to make people feel like they're richer even if the future costs will ultimately make them poorer. Anyways, this second paragraph was completely off-topic, so sorry.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if Obama gave the same speech you'd be applauding. Sad.

The beauty of it all is that Obama hasn't made that same speech.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Vic

To the people of North Carolina and Indiana: please cast your vote for Obama and put an end to this insanity today.

Done.

This is pathetic, but I'm sure her supporters will eat this up. How STUPID does she think people are?

they elected GW twice, how stupid ARE the people?

That's not a fair assessment. You can't put down 100% of the people for the faults of 50.1% of them. Both votes were EXTREMELY close, and in either case, Bush would have lost had the Dems fielded a better candidate. This year, the Dems have that better candidate, so why is Hillary even still in the running?

Because half the Democrats are as stupid as most Republicans?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahaha I'd love to know how she plans to take them out. Or will she push them to a ban like the 70's?

You know if Hillary does get elected with a rubbstamp congress. I'd almost be willing to take 4 years of that crap as it would make the downfall of the Republican party seem tame and make a lot of whiners on this board eat crow.

Sadly there are many people who will vote today who bought into it.

I heard someone talking about it, it went something along the lines of blahblahWTOmumbojumbo.

maybe she'll kill OPEC with her bare hands like she killed those snipers in bosnia.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahaha I'd love to know how she plans to take them out. Or will she push them to a ban like the 70's?

You know if Hillary does get elected with a rubbstamp congress. I'd almost be willing to take 4 years of that crap as it would make the downfall of the Republican party seem tame and make a lot of whiners on this board eat crow.

Sadly there are many people who will vote today who bought into it.

I heard someone talking about it, it went something along the lines of blahblahWTOmumbojumbo.

maybe she'll kill OPEC with her bare hands like she killed those snipers in bosnia.

She could kill them by giving a speech in her whiny voice.

 

[lupi]

So one person just tosses around the word "change" without providing even bread crumbs as a morsel of substance, yet another is making substantial statements of goals to accomplish and that is somehow bad.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We will reek or we will change. It's our decision.

Your idea of change is a false one. Washington DC will corrupt Obama like anyone else.

So we should choose someone who is already hopelessly corrupted instead?

I did not say that.

Moonbeam makes it sound like we have something to celebrate. Where as replacing 1 man in Washington DC is only a fool's hope. We need a political party dedicated to it, we need this ?change? to take over Washington ? not to send a single lamb to the slaughter.

So true. We have to wait till everything is perfect before we change.

Obama is bottom up. Without bottom up there WILL BE no change. Obama as Pres means the bottom goes all the way to the top.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: lupi
So one person just tosses around the word "change" without providing even bread crumbs as a morsel of substance, yet another is making substantial statements of goals to accomplish and that is somehow bad.

It's always funny to see someone throw around the "Obama hasnt provided any substance" rhetoric when, in fact, he has actually provided just as many specifics and details for his policy proposals and "goals" as any other candidate.

In Hillary's world, does repeating something over and over again, as she also did with the sniper fiasco, somehow make it true?

too funny.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We will reek or we will change. It's our decision.

Your idea of change is a false one. Washington DC will corrupt Obama like anyone else.

So we should choose someone who is already hopelessly corrupted instead?

I did not say that.

Moonbeam makes it sound like we have something to celebrate. Where as replacing 1 man in Washington DC is only a fool's hope. We need a political party dedicated to it, we need this ?change? to take over Washington ? not to send a single lamb to the slaughter.

So true. We have to wait till everything is perfect before we change.

Obama is bottom up. Without bottom up there WILL BE no change. Obama as Pres means the bottom goes all the way to the top.

christ, now we're back to the Obama is gay rumors?