Monday, May 26, 2008

Are Democrats stupid?

Given that Democrats are not stupid, and given that their Masters, aka the Far Left, is not stupid, you just have to wonder why they oppose drilling for oil in the US. I mean it is obvious that the economy is going into the tank, and it is obvious that this won't be a short term problem if we don't do something to strengthen the dollar by taking the pressure off of it by buying non-OPEC oil.

So why are the doing this?

Some speculate that they believe that by depressing the economy they can win the election. So this isn't about "saving the planet" but electing Demos. I desperately hope that is wrong because that means we have a large number of totally despeciable polticians and their supporters.

I think it has to do with their belief that, as good elitists, they know what is best for the American people, and since the American people haven't embraced the proper life styles they intend to force them into it by keeping gasoline prices high. Hussein let the cat out of the bag here.

Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for his party's presidential nomination, has made fighting climate change a key issue of his campaign, and as fuel prices soar, he has repeatedly called on car makers to increase fuel efficiency standards.

Without specifically telling Americans to stop buying gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, the Illinois senator said higher fuel prices would lead to a shift.

"We've seen that this quarter. People are changing their behavior and we've seen a slump in the sales of SUVs and big trucks and a drastic spike in cars both medium size and small," he told reporters on his campaign plane.

The problem is that if the economy continues to go south, people won't be able to replace their existing vehicles, so higher fuel prices will merely result in less and less dollars to be spent on things besides transportation and utilities.

Hussein obviously doesn't understand that with most us there is something called a "budget" that we have to live with.

Or perhaps he does, but doesn't care what pain his knuckle headed policies would cause the ordinary citizen. After all he clearly told what he sees for the future. No new technology. No new sources. Just less and less. Just as long as it makes the third world happy.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ...

Are we electing a President, or a delegate to the United Nations?

Crude oil at $200

Both sides lately have been fond of playing what I call the "worse/better than when us/you came into power.

The Democrats especially enjoy it because they can go back to 2001 and say:
"When George Bush took office oil was selling for about $20.00 a barrel. It broke $132.00 a barrel this week. That's a 650 percent increase."

And this is true enough. But let us look at the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey says.

In the first six (6) years that Bush was President, with a Republican Congress, oil climbed from about $20 a barrel to about $55.00 a barrel. That is about a 270 per cent increase. Said another way that is a $35.00 barrel increase, or about .48 cents a month. Of course the increases weren't steady. There were increases and decreases as you expect any commodity market to have. But that's the rate of increase.

Now I cut the Republicans no slack for that. And even though they had no real hope of getting new drilling and new refinery construction going due the lack of a filibuster proof majority, they didn't really try. No bully pulpit. No demands for Congress to act. They didn't do squat.

Now some may say that Bush was defocused by the war and the Democrats opposition to the war, and that is why he didn't act, just as Clinton was said to be so defocused by Monicagate he didn't act to, as Clinton admitted, pick up bin Ladin when he could have. And while I see some small logic in both claims, I cut neither any slack. They're big boys and girls and have staffs and should be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

But the real question is, why, after the Democrats took control, did the price go from $55 to $132?? Let both sides admit to the facts. Oil at $55 a barrel was no particular problem. But now, with a solid Democratic Congress, we have a huge problem. A $132 a barrel problem. That is about a 240 per cent increase, or about $77in 15 months or about $5.13 a month. And the increase has been steady, no up and downs, just a linear $5.13 each month. Something you wouldn't expect in a commmodity market.

And yet the Demos "we don't give a shit" attitude continues. They compounded it two weeks ago by, again, turning down a Republican attempt to drill in ANWAR and off shore....

That was highly stupid. The country is being bled dry and the Democrats won't try to protect it. That is damnable at best.

But let's return to the question. Why did it take 6 years for oil to go up about 270 per cent, yet less than 15 months for it to go up 240 percent? That is a huge difference. The difference is in the rate of change. About 270% increase in 72 months under Bush and a Republican Congress. 240% in less than 15 months under a Democrat Congress. You are getting 2014 prices, today. The shock to the economy is terrible.

So what happened? Well, a theory. OPEC and the oil companies are not stupid. As long as Bush and the Republicans were in power, any real radical rate of change just might generate enough public out rage and heat that a bill could get passed to build refineries and start drilling to increase supply.

But. As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress there was absolutely no chance of that happening. And the results speak for themselves.

That anyone would even think about voting for a Demo is beyond me. Of course there are large numbers of stupid people in this world.