Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh: Daschle's lose-lose agenda
Posted on 01/10/2002 5:26:19 AM PST by truthandlifeEdited on 07/12/2004 3:50:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's much-hyped speech last week contained most of the usual pre-September 11 Democratic rhetoric. President Bush's tax cuts not only favored the wealthy, they were unaffordable. They drained funds from the surplus, which has now been eliminated. And more spending on domestic programs, which Mr. Daschle dresses up as "homeland security," will now have to be cut or postponed or funded by "raiding the Social Security surplus."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Hey Dasshole, they can use your help in Argentina, why don't you take your commie bleeding heart and LEAVE on the next plane! Stay the hell out of my wallet RAT!
Way to go, Rush!!!!
Don't get me wrong, I love reading Rush as much as listening too him and wish he would write another book. But something is afoot.
And those were actually "advanced payments" of a 2001 tax credit.
If all of the countries in South America stopped shipping bananas to the U.S., we'd simply have to pay more money to get them from somewhere else. But because the U.S. is the largest consumer market in the world, anyone who decides to stop shipping anything to us has the business acumen of an idiot (or a Democrat).
This country doesn't "rely" on Middle East oil -- it simply prefers to buy much of it from the Middle East because it's the least expensive source of oil on the world market.
Where would you think they'd buy it? And why do you think they prefer to import versus American resources?
THERE IS AN ENERGY CRISIS IN THE OFFING - RUSH IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. It's a crisis because the red tape worms in Washington are preventing us from finding domestic oil to meet our needs, and because our supply is increasingly in the hands of nations that don't wish America well. Rush is, quite appropriately, focusing condemnation where it belongs, on the nation's highest elected Democratic leader for his reckless policies and fanatical devotion to his own (and his wife's) self-interest.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees...
As far as foreign oil is concerned, it is worth examining oilfield activity in the United States at various points in recent history. When oil was trading at $40 per barrel back in the 1970s, there was a boom in oil drilling in the U.S. in places like Oklahoma and Texas. When oil was trading at $12 per barrel a few years ago, these drilling operations came to a halt. The drilling didn't stop because we ran out of all, it stopped because it makes no sense to extract raw crude oil in Texas at a cost of $15 per barrel when the market price is $12.
It is estimated that the tar sands region in northern Canada contains enough oil to sustain 500 years worth of oil for all of North America at the current level of consumption. The problem is that the oil cannot be drilled from these tar sands -- the extraction process is actually a mining operation that involves removing the sand and separating the oil from it. This costs about $14 per barrel to produce, so nobody in their right mind is going to do it unless the price of oil is high enough (say, $25 per barrel) to guarantee a decent profit. Even at prices below $25 per barrel, there is still a substantial amount of oil activity in the Fort McMurray area of northern Alberta. If every Middle Eastern country stopped producing oil tomorrow, the price of oil would shoot up dramatically (let's say, up to $60 per barrel), at which time everyone in the oil business (and everyone who ever thought of being in the oil business) would be up in Alberta digging that oil out of the ground.
It might be worth your while to go back and do some research of all those "doomsday" predictions about an energy crisis since the 1940. Every one of them goes something like this (the actual numbers aren't real, but you get the point):
In 1950, someone determines that the world only has about 10 billion barrels of oil reserves left. Between 1950 and 1960, the oil industry refines 35 billion barrels of oil.
In 1960, someone else determines that the world has only 150 billion barrels of oil. Over the next ten years, the oil industry produces 400 billion barrels.
Etc., etc., etc.
What I find amazing is that the people who promote these "doomsday" scenarios are about 0 for 150 when it comes to the accuracy of their predictions, and yet many of us (maybe most of us!) are willing to listen to them the next time they make one of these predictions!
Let's have a bet. We'll track the prices of various energy-related commodities (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) over the next ten years, adjust them based on the inflation rate every year, and then see how they compare to today's prices.
For every commodity that is more expensive in ten years, I'll pay out $100. For every commodity that is less expensive in ten years, I get $100.
Some of you may know that economists Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich had a similar "bet" when Ehrlich published The Population Explosion (in which he forecast major energy shortages, mass starvation, etc.) back in the 1960s. I believe Simon ended up "collecting" on 39 out of the 40 commodities they tracked.
Our economic health and national security are at risk when countries that don't like us can interrupt our oil supply. And policies like those espoused by a bureaucratic, big government Dracula like Daschle can do serious harm to the nation. And don't forget, a doomsday scenario only has to come true once to ruin America's whole day.
And, Alberta's Child, if you believe that the economic and cultural "corrections" are painless, go ask some of the folks who lost their life savings when banks like Penn Square in Oklahoma City, Seattle First National in Washington state and Continental Illinois in Chicago crashed after the energy market collapsed in the early 80s. Those banks failed, to the tune of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars in bailout costs, due to horrendous government energy policies and foreign domination of the oil market at the time.
I would suggest reading Rush's article again.
You can't have it both ways -- either the oil "crisis" was bad or it was good.
It's also worth noting that the bank failures of the 1980s had nothing to do with oil prices. Ironically, the two major causes of these failures were strong economic growth (resulting in rapidly declining interest rates) and the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The first issue is something that is difficult for people to understand, while the second is something that most people in government don't want to admit. It's much easier to just sit around and mindlessly blame it all on the "Decade of Greed."
I understand that, when those banks failed, depositors recovered all of their deposits from the federal government, even though it wasn't legally obligated to do so at the time.
Tremendous economic damage occurred to all of the investors in the companies that became insolvent when their cash sources dried up. A number of good companies, in addition to the fly-by-night operators, were destroyed when the market collapsed.
Thank you for your continued support and remember to Buy American.
The oil boom of the late 70s and early 80s in oil producing states came about, in part, because of the short-term market upheaval that took place AFTER decades of government control over oil and gas prices were removed. (I'm not arguing in favor of government control of oil prices, I'm just stating a fact). Had the free market been the prevailing force on oil and gas all along, I would contend that there would have been no energy crisis.
And, again, Rush's point was that Daschle's policies will hurt America - in both energy and taxes. Anyone have any argument with his point?
So nice to see you here, holdonnow. Sure wish you'd show up more often here and on TV to refute/demolish the drivel being spewed/shoveled out by the screaming heads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.