YellowLinesandArmadillos

So much better than arguing about stupid political econ. Flyers suck, Flyers suck!

Yeh but you can listen to it, go to http://www.sabres.com/radio.cfm and click on the big radio.

4-0 and Esche according to Jannerett has lost it!

No my rant is that there are some things the Government can do, counter to your philosophy, we have given away royalties to them and while the refinery business may suck, don't know on that one, the Oil companies themselves that own the refiners are not doing bad right now and yet we are giving away tax dollars to these same oil companies. I am not arguing long term, short term only, your's and CTW's arguements apply. Government only works effectively I believe with short-term interventions. Longterm interventions short of direct cash redistributions such as S.S. are inherently inefficient. Won't argue longterm with you on this one, I agree. But, because of this and Bush's honest, but ill conceived political response to the deal, this price spike is going to hurt him and the GOP just like it hurt Carter.

Okay then we are not arguing on that point, misunderstood, and I probably should have know better. With all the consolidation in the refinery business, you are saying that capacity has not decreased. I have heard that using suspect maintenance schedules, companies are taking many of them off line and that we are not refining at anywhere near capacity. If I am wrong and I have only heard this through rumors, blogs and Salon.com I stand corrected, but if true that would constitute manipulation of supply and therefore prices.

I wonder if their is anything reciprocal when can do to Mexico's government? Fox is full of it, and Tijuana is dangerous, maybe we should prosecute some border crossing Federalies in full public view.

First let me clarify CTW and AD and any other supply siders or so called free marketers...there is no such thing as true free markets when they are consolidated so far that there is no practicle way for an outsider to enter the market. While I understand that government regulation is an inefficient mechanism for adjusting prices and will eventually cause price distortions, short term interventions can and do work, i.e., threats, investigations and other pressures. Clinton did it in the mid 90s and Gas prices remained stable. Demand is greater because of the Chinese, but refinery capacity is much lower and the number of refiners have decreased. So I don't understand the aversion to using some short term bully pullpit nudging to stabilize the refinery price games and don't tell me it is not happening. Through in some scary news from oil areas and there you have it. Furthermore, from a Political Standpoint, nothing you guys have said counters the Bush Bad arguement that results from him doing nothing. Just an informed political observation, this will hurt Bush. The GOP will probably argue that the Dems have block Energy policy and the Dems will counter with their usual arguements that GOP policies are give aways to big business that won't help and will hurt the environment. All have some truth, but neither side will see a reason to compromise and thus we are stuck with whims of a few oligopolies. P.S. Just drove through Southwest, CO up to the Northeast section and saw a lot of oil wells, including 4-5 new ones being actively drilled. Not sure to what extent and at what level, but interesting.

If Bush was proactive, at least threatening a release of the reserve and maybe releasing a few thousand gallons, it might slow down the pricing game. Furthermore, CTW the consolidation in the oil refinery market over the last number of years including under Clinton has created a defacto elimination of competition in the refinery sector and therefore is rife for price manipulation. It is called and oligopoly, but you already know that, so the statement that their is scant evidence of overt price manipulation, maybe, but it doesn't have to be overt. With inelastic demand, a do nothing President unwilling to pull any economic levers, including investigating the industry...there is always b.s. in businesses this size; releasing oil from the reserves; or maybe a couple of other creative ideas to put pressure on the oil companies, i.e, temporarily eliminating oil subsidies for exploration when not needed, might get a little more rational pricing. Supply right now is not the problem, refining is. But your response while wordy, misses the point. Bush is not reacting and from a political and P.R. standpoint it is a mistake. Dems can and will simplistically take him to task for it and rightly so, when the shoe was on the other foot, i.e., Carter, Repubs have done so. So all the convoluted economic arguments aside, 1. it is happening, an "oil crisis" 2. it is hurting average Americans in the pockets books, spoiled or not, 3. there is an appearance that it is lining the pockets of Bush buddies, 4. Bush "can't do anything about it"(paraphrased)....it is against his economic philosophy (my analysis). 5. Politically, this is very dangerous for Republicans. 6. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a high IQ to figure it out.

Despite the actual sarcastic thoughts about the title....why won't the President try some intervention techniques to address oil company profiteering. I know that some of this is demand side driven, but a lot is not based on supply of oil but domestic refinery manipulation, ala, Enron energy market manipulation. He hasn't even threatened opening up the strategic oil reserve to shock these guys to some sanity in their pricing. Long term it won't change the dynamics and maybe this current price shock will actually cause some good old American innovation to another source of energy. But darn, this sure can't help the President, reinforces the perception of lame duck weakness, i.e., his inability to take strong action to address a domestic crisis. ]Link

Even as one who is on the left, I can't listen to Al Franken, he and Anne Coulter are two that deserve each other. They both make my skin crawl...listening to their voices is like scrapping a chalk board. Yeesh...

I don't know how to respond in any kind of intelligent way to your simplicitic responses, I think Scraps has it right, not so much partisan with the exception of Clark and Franks. I still don't know enough about the internal workings of the military hierarchy. Obviously there are military politics to play, but the criticism seems less about partisanship and more about whistle blowing on Rumsfeld and the mishandling of the Iraq War. CTWs analysis of Rumsfeld may have pissed a few off and knowing how beaucracies work, I think is the more likely scenario. Rumsfeld's incompetence has been exposed and they are taking advantage of his fallen stature to express their views on that incompetence, but regardless of their motivation, their words seem to ring true. BiB, I know you know the inside game better than most around here concerning DOD, what do you think, sour grapes and Rumsfeld negative exposure is allowing the former Generals to feel safe to voice their thoughts?

Agreed, yet someone here or on Comedy Central said the other day that following France's guest worker idea is idiotic. Then we would create 12 million disenfranchised immigrants with no hope of citizenship, being theoretically sent back in six years, and likely to engage in riots to protest the situation...oops sounds like we are there already. I am waiting for the backlash too, but being a pessimist, I just don't think the American public really cares and views the best policy is to ignore it and it will go away unless their SUVs stop working or soccer practice gets canceled. Ah let them waved their flags who really cares. Denial works wonders.

And that is why the decision to go to war with Sadam was so short sighted. It is not that I didn't like to see the world rid of the bastard, just that there were too many unintended consequences likely to result from doing so and not a lot of answers on how to adequately solve to seeable problems, let alone the unanticipated ones. Short of Nukeing or firebombing the whole region, I am not sure there could be a "successful scenario" unless a lot of ground work and undercover allies were brought to bear against the extremsts. That could take years and we our intelligence capability was obviously indequate, so reallly we were starting at ground zero. Wonder if backing off is still a viable solution, with all its potential consequences?

Just making a comment on the cynical nature of this board from all sides. I have been a member of the hook and bullet crowd on occasion and except the extemes of the bullet crowd, I agree with them. Most of this crowd just doesn't seem to be warm and fuzzy, but I guess that is why you didn't get the comment.

Only those taking a class at the Universities or colleges and the local Puerto Ricans, which I am told are still in the Black Rock area back home.

I feel you Bob, start driving back to the promised land on Monday, couldn't happen soon enough.

Yeh but you didn't have to pay for IPODS, Video Cams, Cell Phones and gas for their new car....I was just happy to have a bicycle to ride.

Nice Wacka, and while I like Conyers political statements a lot, he is definetly past his prime and had a rep of abusing staff when I was there, someone to avoid working for. Unfortunately, and I will say it again, I may like someone's politics on the Hill, but the difference between the good humans and the real a@#$holes know no party limitations, they abound throughout the Hill. And in fact some of the biggest idiots politically are some of the nicest folks to be around. The two don't seem to go hand in hand very often.

Mine are too young yet, but I was raised the same way, got a ten speed when I was twelve and was told I would pay for my next bike myself. Got my first paper route the day the Blizzard of 77 hit and delivered them on Crescent Ave. See a lot of kids playing video games and being chauffered to soccer or lacrosse practice.

Her turn ons are not applicable to this crowd either unless you count killing animals as love, and positive attitude definetly doesn't apply.

You guys are just sick...but at least give me some real numbers to think about?

The more that I am out of Washington, the more I tend to agree with your assessment of party politics. However, I understand why the political game is played the way it is and whining about it doesn't seem to help. The competition thing is good despite the other guy bad rhetoric. And a balance of powers seems to work well when each group has some power, would like to see at least a third party then a coalition could be formed trading one off against the other, but I don't think more parties than that would solve anything, it would just fracture the process further and even less would get done. I know it is frustrating, politics always is, and it is worse when neither side is willing to work with the other and each spends more energy calling the other names. Still what bothers me the most is thinking that corrupt business and lobbyists will still always get their own from whichever party is in power. The only thing that I can think is that every four years the other side has to give up power and switch. But any time you have something predictable, business and other special interests can figure ways to imbed their hooks. Only unpredictable outcomes tend to keep things on the up and up. Good luck beating your heads against the wall, I did it for 14 years plus 4 of college. P.S. Kennedy didn't write the No Child Left Behind idiotic testing reqs. Bush Did, nice blame it on one side. Kennedy's goal was always to try and find ways to provide more funding for education and was willing to go along to an extent with whatever form Bush wanted. Nice try though.

I understand the feeling but I don't think you can solve it by building the fence and trying to stop the flow and then have a discussion on how to deal with it afterwards. Politically it is untenable for both sides to do it that way. It is going to have both issues dealt with simultaneously and have all sides agree. The jail and send them back punishment idea for illegals won't work because the hispanic community will never agree to it and at this point they have too much political clout, along with their business alies. The $fine and educational requirements along with some additionaly community service tasks may work, while the fence is being built. It is the only option that I see having a chance. The only other question, since we seem to get into everyone elses business outside our country, is there anything we can do about the corrupt Mexican Government as it directly relates to this issue?

Hey all I can get right now is the Sabres on the web radio, connection not fast enough for webcast right now. Reminds me though of listening with the radio under my pillow to the games as a kid when I was suppose to be a sleep during the old French connection days with Ted Darling and Paul Weiland.

I know the rhetoric on all sides seems just a bit...a bit rediculous, I am tired or it. Set up a workable law, the Senate thing sounded okay?...build a fence and send a letter to Mexican President Fox with a published list of suggestions on how he could clean up the corruption in his government and police force, starting with him resigning himself. The Mexican Constitution thing could aslo be on that list, but who really wants to live in Mexico, the poor sure want out. The rest of the debate is as inane as the school kids at the LA rally flashing gang signs. Yet, this is all a joke, forget the rallies, this is won't change anything anyway and it both sides will use it as good campaign fodder when they think it works to their advantage. Next thing you know there will be another Abramoff ripping off the Mexican American Immigrants on this issue and it will probably implicate the rest of the Republican and Democratic Leadership. Follow the money and watch for educational freebee trips to Cancun by Members!