Gasoline prices are nothing if not visible, and that such prices are high and rising is unlikely to help the party holding the White House. Average U.S. gasoline prices have risen from about $2.87 per gallon a year ago to $4....
No, it's not pointless to do marginal things that could make marginal improvements. Regarding broken homes:
1) Is there are critical mass of experts and/or legislators who agree that "broken homes" contribute to gun violence? Maybe. I don't know. In any event, this is the first hurdle to get over.
2) Let's assume one gets over #1. Some problems are not complex, but STILL very hard to get effective legislation to address. "Fixing broken homes" is no doubt HUGELY, HUGELY complex. For a similar magnitude of (and related) challenge, see "Poverty" and "The War on Poverty." How's that turning out? A good supposed conservative like you should be awfully receptive to that point.
So, yeah, if and when one chooses to endeavor to get over the 2 freakin' Everest's above, it behooves one to ALSO in the meantime do some more marginal things (background checks, perhaps age restrictions, magazine capacity, bump stocks [already made illegal?], etc.).
Because guess what? As implied above, you ain't gonna fix "broken homes" ANYTIME soon......
I mean, we can't convince tens of millions of people in this country that having a malevolent autocrat wanna-be as president is a bad thing. Or that evil scientists and doctors and public officials weren't simply out to get them with COVID mitigations. Suppose we stand much of a chance of convincing lots of people to establish and maintain loving spousal relationships and raise their children well?
Sure, go ahead and try. Good luck.
We should totally make murder or shooting someone with a gun illegal.
That will solve the problem.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I can’t believe there are “conservatives” like you that are so incredibly stupid. Maybe you should become a liberal 😂😂😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂😂
Hey, if we're going to put any version of "conservative" in quotations, let's make it the faux version that means, "Willing to lick Donny's a** on command without hesitation." Like you.
This man is literally paid by republicans to lobby against regulations and taxes. Also, his argument isn’t that the Biden administration caused the increase. His argument is that the future plans of the liberals, slowly cutting back on oil, is what caused the increase. He never actually connects a policy the Biden administration authored to the price increase. Just the thought of Joe Biden is apparently enough to increase prices. This is what happens when you are paid to make an argument.
Zycher doesn't say high gas prices are Biden's fault.
He doesn't buy the administration's arguments but he admits that, "it is reasonable to observe first that presidents get more blame and more credit than they deserve"
This man is literally paid by republicans to lobby against regulations and taxes. Also, his argument isn’t that the Biden administration caused the increase. His argument is that the future plans of the liberals, slowly cutting back on oil, is what caused the increase. He never actually connects a policy the Biden administration authored to the price increase. Just the thought of Joe Biden is apparently enough to increase prices. This is what happens when you are paid to make an argument.
Yes, and even then he's very careful not to connect the dots between the "future plans of liberals" and actual gas prices today. He only suggests that it might have some effect, but never tries to say how large the effect could be.
This is a far cry from actually blaming Biden. He leaves that to conservative pundits who might read his work.
"Professor Benjamin Zycher was an economist for The Rand Corporation and a lecturer at UCLA who became erratically involved in the CASH-FOR-COMMENTS network run for the Tobacco Institute. He became recruited into a clandestine network of academic economists who secretly worked for the tobacco industry through the Tobacco Institute." -https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benjamin_Zycher
Zycher doesn't say high gas prices are Biden's fault.
He doesn't buy the administration's arguments but he admits that, "it is reasonable to observe first that presidents get more blame and more credit than they deserve"
"So incoherent is the overall Biden policy on fossil fuels — increases in artificial constraints on domestic production and investment combined with exhortations that foreign producers increase their output, all in the context of a “climate crisis” for which there is no evidence — and so politically damaging are high gasoline prices, that we now find the administration reversing course and imploring domestic fossil producers to increase output."
You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. I suspect you skimmed it until you got to the sentence you liked and then ignored the other 90% of the article which destroyed the premise of your sentence.
"Professor Benjamin Zycher was an economist for The Rand Corporation and a lecturer at UCLA who became erratically involved in the CASH-FOR-COMMENTS network run for the Tobacco Institute. He became recruited into a clandestine network of academic economists who secretly worked for the tobacco industry through the Tobacco Institute." -https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benjamin_Zycher
Another example of "expertise relativism" which seems to be common amongst basement dwellers....and a whole heck of a lot of Rs these days. When "experts" say that COVID is real and bad and we should do things to mitigate it, they're just liberal partisan morans (and worse). Ditto climate change, or pretty much anything else seen as a concern of the other tribe.
BUT, if we can find a possible expert with perhaps a fancy degree from perhaps a fancy institution telling us what we want to hear ("Go My Tribe!"), suddenly experts ain't so bad.
Moreover, these expert haters NEVER hesitate to buy the products of that non-expertise at the pharmacy when they get the sniffles, or go to the doctor to fix them up or save their life, or listen to the meteorologist for this weekend's forecast, or, or, or.......
"Professor Benjamin Zycher was an economist for The Rand Corporation and a lecturer at UCLA who became erratically involved in the CASH-FOR-COMMENTS network run for the Tobacco Institute. He became recruited into a clandestine network of academic economists who secretly worked for the tobacco industry through the Tobacco Institute." -https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benjamin_Zycher
"Professor Benjamin Zycher was an economist for The Rand Corporation and a lecturer at UCLA who became erratically involved in the CASH-FOR-COMMENTS network run for the Tobacco Institute. He became recruited into a clandestine network of academic economists who secretly worked for the tobacco industry through the Tobacco Institute." -https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benjamin_Zycher
Another example of "expertise relativism" which seems to be common amongst basement dwellers....and a whole heck of a lot of Rs these days. When "experts" say that COVID is real and bad and we should do things to mitigate it, they're just liberal partisan morans (and worse). Ditto climate change, or pretty much anything else seen as a concern of the other tribe.
BUT, if we can find a possible expert with perhaps a fancy degree from perhaps a fancy institution telling us what we want to hear ("Go My Tribe!"), suddenly experts ain't so bad.
Moreover, these expert haters NEVER hesitate to buy the products of that non-expertise at the pharmacy when they get the sniffles, or go to the doctor to fix them up or save their life, or listen to the meteorologist for this weekend's forecast, or, or, or.......
Intelligent people don't completely ignore common sense.
Alas, you don't have this problem as you're not intelligent and you don't have any common sense.
The tv tells you to panic and you panic without even a second thought. You're a "useful idiot". Nothing more.
The fact that you're arrogant about being a moron is hysterical.
Zycher doesn't say high gas prices are Biden's fault.
He doesn't buy the administration's arguments but he admits that, "it is reasonable to observe first that presidents get more blame and more credit than they deserve"
"So incoherent is the overall Biden policy on fossil fuels — increases in artificial constraints on domestic production and investment combined with exhortations that foreign producers increase their output, all in the context of a “climate crisis” for which there is no evidence — and so politically damaging are high gasoline prices, that we now find the administration reversing course and imploring domestic fossil producers to increase output."
You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. I suspect you skimmed it until you got to the sentence you liked and then ignored the other 90% of the article which destroyed the premise of your sentence.
Again, he never says that Biden is responsible for high gas prices. He only suggests that these policies might have an effect. How much of an effect? He won't say.
"So incoherent is the overall Biden policy on fossil fuels — increases in artificial constraints on domestic production and investment combined with exhortations that foreign producers increase their output, all in the context of a “climate crisis” for which there is no evidence — and so politically damaging are high gasoline prices, that we now find the administration reversing course and imploring domestic fossil producers to increase output."
You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. I suspect you skimmed it until you got to the sentence you liked and then ignored the other 90% of the article which destroyed the premise of your sentence.
Again, he never says that Biden is responsible for high gas prices. He only suggests that these policies might have an effect. How much of an effect? He won't say.
Again, he never says that Biden is responsible for high gas prices. He only suggests that these policies might have an effect. How much of an effect? He won't say.
Read it slower if it helps.
No need.
If I'm wrong then show me where the article says how much Biden policies affected gas prices. It's not there.
If I'm wrong then show me where the article says how much Biden policies affected gas prices. It's not there.
There's multiple paragraphs explaining it.
"Even if we assume a moderate “tightening” effect on U.S. gasoline supply and refinery conditions, gasoline consumption would have had roughly to double to yield a price increase of 50 percent. Nothing even remotely close to that has happened."
When everything but Biden's actions are ruled out what are you left with to explain the huge increase in price?
If I'm wrong then show me where the article says how much Biden policies affected gas prices. It's not there.
There's multiple paragraphs explaining it.
"Even if we assume a moderate “tightening” effect on U.S. gasoline supply and refinery conditions, gasoline consumption would have had roughly to double to yield a price increase of 50 percent. Nothing even remotely close to that has happened."
When everything but Biden's actions are ruled out what are you left with to explain the huge increase in price?
You clearly didn't understand the article.
He didn't rule out everything but Biden's actions. He only dismissed Biden's arguments.
He has no data to support a causal relationship between Biden's actions and today's gas prices. Therefore, he doesn't make any actual hard estimate of their effect.
There are plenty of things apart from Biden's actions that he never mentioned.
One that is often cited is that oil companies don't want to get burned again like they did when oil demand fell off a cliff during the pandemic. And investors want returns today to make up for their losses in the past. So these companies decreased investment in new drilling and exploration in order to boost earnings in the present.
Another is that we are probably hitting the peak of oil demand right now. EVs are taking over and it is projected that the worldwide fleet of gas-powered vehicles will never get higher than it is today. This is cited as another reason that oil companies don't want to invest in new drilling and exploration.
"Even if we assume a moderate “tightening” effect on U.S. gasoline supply and refinery conditions, gasoline consumption would have had roughly to double to yield a price increase of 50 percent. Nothing even remotely close to that has happened."
When everything but Biden's actions are ruled out what are you left with to explain the huge increase in price?
You clearly didn't understand the article.
He didn't rule out everything but Biden's actions. He only dismissed Biden's arguments.
He has no data to support a causal relationship between Biden's actions and today's gas prices. Therefore, he doesn't make any actual hard estimate of their effect.
There are plenty of things apart from Biden's actions that he never mentioned.
One that is often cited is that oil companies don't want to get burned again like they did when oil demand fell off a cliff during the pandemic. And investors want returns today to make up for their losses in the past. So these companies decreased investment in new drilling and exploration in order to boost earnings in the present.
Another is that we are probably hitting the peak of oil demand right now. EVs are taking over and it is projected that the worldwide fleet of gas-powered vehicles will never get higher than it is today. This is cited as another reason that oil companies don't want to invest in new drilling and exploration.
Exactly! You're describing demand that's artificially manipulated by the government. You just don't seem to understand it.
He didn't rule out everything but Biden's actions. He only dismissed Biden's arguments.
He has no data to support a causal relationship between Biden's actions and today's gas prices. Therefore, he doesn't make any actual hard estimate of their effect.
There are plenty of things apart from Biden's actions that he never mentioned.
One that is often cited is that oil companies don't want to get burned again like they did when oil demand fell off a cliff during the pandemic. And investors want returns today to make up for their losses in the past. So these companies decreased investment in new drilling and exploration in order to boost earnings in the present.
Another is that we are probably hitting the peak of oil demand right now. EVs are taking over and it is projected that the worldwide fleet of gas-powered vehicles will never get higher than it is today. This is cited as another reason that oil companies don't want to invest in new drilling and exploration.
Exactly! You're describing demand that's artificially manipulated by the government. You just don't seem to understand it.
How is Biden responsible for the lack of demand during the pandemic, which caused oil suppliers to lower drilling and exploration?
How are Biden's policies responsible for the worldwide growth in EVs? The only action he's taken on EVs is to add some chargers in the US and a few orders to increase battery production in the US. Besides, EV adoption is growing faster in other developed nations.
The idea that either of those is due to Biden's government manipulation is totally insane. It's even too insane for you.
UPDATE 6/8/2022, 2:58 pm: Ford’s North American Product Communications Director, Mike Levine, said Gary Smith Ford confirmed the sticker was an error as the MSRP was input twice online, which is why the MSRP and market adjust...
