Kerry is a Flip Flopper

[Mark]

The question has not been answered. Did you forget it?

Face it, Rob. One of the biggest conservative attacks on Kerry was that he was a flip flopper. Now we have a HUGE, blatant, example of Bush doing the exact same thing and all you guys can do is sputter, blow smoke and throw insults.

The answer to your question is a genuine "I don't know." I am not going to "do the research" because it is utterly irrelevant to this thread (as I am certain you know, or you wouldn't be so belligerent).

I ask again:

What in Bush's comment said or implied that the level of reserves determined whether or not it was bad policy to tap into them?

If you can show me that, your earlier question will have some relevance. Until then it is just the usual conservative attempt to distract.

 

[Mark]

The answer to that question flows directly from the answers to Rob's questions. Neither he nor Al Hubbard was speaking for the benefit of people who intentionally shield themselves from facts.

Since you have already declared me "too stupid to take seriously" there seems little else to discuss with you. Or would you care to apologize?

 

[Manny]

I recognize the possibility that you may be a troll.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wait, let me get this straight. The government is delaying purchasing oil until a future date, when prices will likely be lower. That should save the government money, shouldn't it? Are you seriously objecting to the government deciding to save taxpayer money? On what basis, exactly? Seems to me it's a pretty obvious market-driven decision: prices are up right now, if we don't need to purchase now it's better to hold off until prices drop. The only possible objections I could see to this are:
(1) we need to purchase now because the reserves are too low
or
(2) prices are not likely to decrease in the fall

Now, you've been explicitly asked to back up point (1), and have failed to do so. I offer you the alternative to demonstrate or argue for (2) instead, should you so choose. But without either (1) or (2), the policy seems like a pretty obvious and rational response to market conditions. In other words, you've got no point, and are just running around in hysterics like your avatar, per usual.

 

[Manny]

Wait, let me get this straight. The government is delaying purchasing oil until a future date, when prices will likely be lower.

Actually, it's not. The government may not, by law, buy any additional stock for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is statutorially full. Now, there's a rub to that. But I'll hold back until we see if Mark decides to research what, precisely, that means before explaining further.

 

[Tricky]

How is the strategic oil reserve?

Is it:

1) more full than usual, or
2) more empty than usual, or
3) the same?

Although this in no way relates to the conflicting statements by Bush, I did a little digging.

According to Stanford University, the strategic petroleum reserves hovered between 550 billion barrels and 600 BBL during the Clinton years. It is currently around 690 BBL. The current capacity is 727 BBL. Both Clinton and Bush were wrong (IMO) to suggest using the SPR for the purpose of bringing down prices, as "high prices" are hardly what I would call an emergency.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that Bush bashed Clinton for dipping into the SPR for political reasons and is now suggesting exactly the same thing. Nobody should be surprised that politicians change their policies based on political expediency, but you have to admit, it is funny.

 

[BPSCG]

According to Stanford University, the strategic petroleum reserves hovered between 550 billion barrels and 600 BBL during the Clinton years. It is currently around 690 BBL.

Is this right? Total U.S. yearly imports are around four billion BBL. That means the strategic reserve has about 175 years' worth of imported oil in it?

If so, I would say we really don't need to be putting any more into it.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that Bush bashed Clinton for dipping into the SPR for political reasons and is now suggesting exactly the same thing.

But it's not the same thing. Would you say that not putting any more money into your 401(k) is the same thing as making withdrawals from it?

Nobody should be surprised that politicians change their policies based on political expediency, but you have to admit, it is funny.

I agree that it's politically calculated and it will probably have a negligible effect on oil prices. But it's not the same thing as making withdrawals.

 

[Mark]

I recognize the possibility that you may be a troll.

◊◊◊◊ you.

Look children, I'll make it very simple for you. Kerry was accused of being a flip-flopper because of initial support for, and later opposition to the Iraq War; it was a MAJOR campaign issue. The same thing has been said about Clinton.

Here we have an example of Bush doing exactly the same thing. He made no provision for if-reserves-are-higher-it-will-be-OK. None at all. Now you conservatives are making the defense that the situation (oil reserve quantity) has changed, so it's OK for Bush to change his mind, even though he never said there could be exceptions. Fair enough.

So take that idea and apply it to Kerry and his stance on the Iraq War. The circumstances changed, so did his viewpoint.

We don't need a set of rules for the Republicans and another for the Democrats. One set will do nicely. Hence the title of this thread. See how it all comes together, kiddies?

Get it now, Manny? Or are you too stupid to understand?

Hi-Ho-Hi-Ho, off to work I go. Smell ya later, children.

 

[Tricky]

Is this right? Total U.S. yearly imports are around four billion BBL. That means the strategic reserve has about 175 years' worth of imported oil in it?

If so, I would say we really don't need to be putting any more into it.

Sorry. Million barrels. The graph was poorly labeled.

But it's not the same thing. Would you say that not putting any more money into your 401(k) is the same thing as making withdrawals from it?

If the deposits were scheduled and you break that schedule, it has the same effect.

I agree that it's politically calculated and it will probably have a negligible effect on oil prices. But it's not the same thing as making withdrawals.

No, but similiar enough to be good fodder for comedy. Actually though, prices are already dropping, so I'm reasonably sure nothing will happen. I'm glad we have these price spikes though to remind us that the right to drive is not in the Constitution.

 

[Manny]

◊◊◊◊ you.

I answered the questions Rob asked of you in a thread to which you contributed. HOW THE HELL DON'T YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS IF YOU ARE NOT STUPID OR A TROLL?

In fact, I answered those questions because someone had brought up precisely this issue, again in a thread to which you contributed. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU NOT KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE NOT STUPID OR A TROLL?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It sounds to me like the SPR is full so they can't buy anymore, but Bush is trying to use that fact to make it look like he is voluntarily not buying anymore as a means of "doing something" about high gas prices.

Typical political spin and BS.

 

[BPSCG]

If the deposits were scheduled and you break that schedule, it has the same effect.

No, it does not. Stopping deposits leaves the balance at the same level. Making withdrawals reduces the level.

If you have $100 in the bank today and put in one dollar a day, a week from now you'll have $107.00.

If instead of making those deposits, you spend the dollar on beer, at the end of the week, you'll still have that same $100 in the bank that you started with.

That is not the same as withdrawing from your account.

Come on; please tell you understood that without my having to explain it?

I'm glad we have these price spikes though to remind us that the right to drive is not in the Constitution.

Tell that to everyone demanding the government do something about these prices.

 

[BPSCG]

I recognize the possibility that you may be a troll.

◊◊◊◊ you.

Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingding!!!! Manny is our winner in the "Make the Troll Stamp His Foot Into the Ground So Hard He Tears Himself In Half Trying to Pull It Out Again" contest.

Thank you all for playing!

Tomorrow's special guest troll will be...

 

[Manny]

It sounds to me like the SPR is full so they can't buy anymore, but Bush is trying to use that fact to make it look like he is voluntarily not buying anymore as a means of "doing something" about high gas prices.

Typical political spin and BS.

Nah. Mark went away, so we can talk about this like intelligent people acting in good faith.

The reserve is statutorially full. The president, by law, may not buy any more. But it's not actually full (in fact, even when it is "full" it's not "full full" because it has physical storage capacity of somewhere in the 725 mm bbl area, as Tricky said. But we can safely ignore that for now).

Specifically, there's about 12 mm barrels of product out on loan. Those loans were to refiners and oil companies and pipeline companies to mitigate the disruption caused by Katrina and Rita.

What's the difference? The loans are of barrels, not dollars. So the 12 mm bbls which are to be replaced are not subject to price risk.

What the president ordered is that the repayment of 10 mm of those 12 mm barrels be delayed until the fall. He did this at exactly the same time he waived some of the federal gas-mixing rules which were scheduled to be mandatory tomorrow because of a feared shortage of ethanol. Because Congress (and the President) failed to pass an MTBE liability protection package last fall, no one will take gas with MTBE this year. That's the equilivent of taking three small or one mega refiner off the market.

So what we've got is domestic-based supply disruptions caused by two identifiable, short-term reasons. First is the lag of building ethanol plants to replace the lost MTBE (which the remaining producers are now exporting(!)) and getting it to market (another meaty discussion which I'll defer unless anyone cares). Second is the ongoing reduction of capacity in the refinery business because of the aftermath of Katrina and Rita. The industry is only running at ~89% of capacity because of outages, whereas at this time of the season they're normally going full out and when margins are this high they would normall be going more than full out.

The purpose of the SPR, besides providing during times of war, is precisely to mitigate these kinds of short-term, non-price-based supply disruptions. It absolutely makes sense to defer those loan paybacks. Not because it can reasonably be expected to lower prices (though there seems to have been at least a modest psychological effect) but because it can reasonably be expected to mitigate shortages; i.e. no gas available at any price.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Tell that to everyone demanding the government do something about these prices.

I'm not that sure that very many people are doing so. I see far more people rolling their eyes at the government's grandstanding on the issue than demanding government action. Sure, lots of people are bitching and moaning about the prices. Personally I don't like spending $45 to fill up my tank when this time last year it ran me closer to $30, either. But one can bitch and moan and be unhappya bout a situation without demanding the government do something about it.

What I DO see is a lot of politicians seeing the discontent over high gas prices and latching on to it as a political issue on their own intitiative. Most likely because it's an election year and 'bread and circuses' went out of style long ago.

 

[BPSCG]

So what we've got is domestic-based supply disruptions caused by two identifiable, short-term reasons.

...It absolutely makes sense to defer those loan paybacks. Not because it can reasonably be expected to lower prices (though there seems to have been at least a modest psychological effect) but because it can reasonably be expected to mitigate shortages; i.e. no gas available at any price.

Hm. Learn something new every day. Problem is, that's far too complex to be reduced to a ten-second sound bite. So instead we get Chuck Schumer railing about gouging.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Nah. Mark went away, so we can talk about this like intelligent people acting in good faith.

The reserve is statutorially full. The president, by law, may not buy any more. But it's not actually full (in fact, even when it is "full" it's not "full full" because it has physical storage capacity of somewhere in the 725 mm bbl area, as Tricky said. But we can safely ignore that for now).

Specifically, there's about 12 mm barrels of product out on loan. Those loans were to refiners and oil companies and pipeline companies to mitigate the disruption caused by Katrina and Rita.

What's the difference? The loans are of barrels, not dollars. So the 12 mm bbls which are to be replaced are not subject to price risk.

What the president ordered is that the repayment of 10 mm of those 12 mm barrels be delayed until the fall. He did this at exactly the same time he waived some of the federal gas-mixing rules which were scheduled to be mandatory tomorrow because of a feared shortage of ethanol. Because Congress (and the President) failed to pass an MTBE liability protection package last fall, no one will take gas with MTBE this year. That's the equilivent of taking three small or one mega refiner off the market.

So what we've got is domestic-based supply disruptions caused by two identifiable, short-term reasons. First is the lag of building ethanol plants to replace the lost MTBE (which the remaining producers are now exporting(!)) and getting it to market (another meaty discussion which I'll defer unless anyone cares). Second is the ongoing reduction of capacity in the refinery business because of the aftermath of Katrina and Rita. The industry is only running at ~89% of capacity because of outages, whereas at this time of the season they're normally going full out and when margins are this high they would normall be going more than full out.

The purpose of the SPR, besides providing during times of war, is precisely to mitigate these kinds of short-term, non-price-based supply disruptions. It absolutely makes sense to defer those loan paybacks. Not because it can reasonably be expected to lower prices (though there seems to have been at least a modest psychological effect) but because it can reasonably be expected to mitigate shortages; i.e. no gas available at any price.

Interesting.

Got a cite or anything so I can read more on how that all works?

 

[Mason]

Look children, I'll make it very simple for you. Kerry was accused of being a flip-flopper because of initial support for, and later opposition to the Iraq War; it was a MAJOR campaign issue. The same thing has been said about Clinton.

I think what you may be missing (or ignoring, I don't know which) is that nobody really gave a rat's ass about Kerry changing his position. Nobody wants a President who refuses to re-evaluate a given situation as time passes and new information comes in. Sure, people like that stick-to-your-guns attitude, but that's not what we're looking for in a President.

Check out Bush's approval ratings since the start of hostilities. People loved him when he was all "We're going in and we're gonna finish this whatever it takes". Now, when the people are reevaluating the situation based on the events since the start and they're thinking differently. Now, they aren't as happy with his "In it 'til the end" attitude.

So, when the propaganda machine rolled over Kerry's reputation by calling him a flip-flopper, it had hardly anything to do with him changing viewpoints (a trait we actually want), and everything to do with simply runing in an election. See, in an election, people will turn anything you do into a major no-no. One week they'll crucify you for kissing a baby, the next week they'll hang you for not kissing enough babies, the next week they'll shoot at you for kissing too many christian babies, the next week it's for over-compensating by kissing a disproportionate number of black babies.

Then, six years later, your supporters will put pictures of your winning oponent kissing a baby all over the internet saying "Hey! How come it's okay for him to do it now when it wasn't cool for our guy six years ago?" and the answer will be "Nobody really gave a **** six years ago either, but you were all distracted enough by it that you couldn't see through our line of ****."

So, Bush changing his mind isn't a flip-flop any more than Kerry's changing was flip-flopping. The difference is that this isn't an election year so changing your mind is "reevaluating" instead of "flip-flopping". Unless, of course, you're one of them unstable sorts who are stuck in a time hole on last election day, and can't see past the ******** to make a rational assessment.

BTW, invoking Kerry is soooo 2005.

 

[WildCat]

Nobody wants a President who refuses to re-evaluate a given situation as time passes and new information comes in.

Except that the "new information" that caused Kerry to change his mind was poll data. Few people want a President who's that fickle.

 

[Manny]

Got a cite or anything so I can read more on how that all works?

Ugh. No, not one or two links which discuss all of that -- I'm an investor in the energy sector so I know some of this by osmosis. I might be able to help if there's a specific area or two (the SPR capacity, for example -- it's gonna go up. Part of the energy bill was to take it to a billion bbls). Sorry about that.