Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

agip wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

So what's your solution? You want the government to subsidies oil companies and tell them to keep producing in a down market?

Oil companies made decisions based on imperfect knowledge of the future (and of expected government regulation). There's no centrally planned "solution" to this, certainly not one Joe and Kamala could have foreseen.

sure, we're agreed.

I'm pushing back against two things:

the pure faith conservatives have in markets

the myth that the rise in oil prices is due to Biden policy.

//

Although I would argue that having a state-owned oil company is the solution many countries choose. We've not gone that route.

Hardloper wrote:

agip wrote:

As a point against the conservatives who want the market to determine everything. This is what you get sometimes.

So what's your solution? You want the government to subsidies oil companies and tell them to keep producing in a down market?

Oil companies made decisions based on imperfect knowledge of the future (and of expected government regulation). There's no centrally planned "solution" to this, certainly not one Joe and Kamala could have foreseen.

Hardloper wrote:

agip wrote:

sure, we're agreed.

I'm pushing back against two things:

the pure faith conservatives have in markets

the myth that the rise in oil prices is due to Biden policy.

//

Although I would argue that having a state-owned oil company is the solution many countries choose. We've not gone that route.

Conservatives don't support free markets because they create a utopia with zero problems. They support free markets because they're better than the alternative. That's an important point.

Private oil industry is better for the US than a state owned oil company in a zillion different ways why virtually all the innovation in the oil industry happens here. So in making a point about conservatives supporting free markets you used an example where the free market is clearly the right choice.

Fat hurts wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

So what's your solution? You want the government to subsidies oil companies and tell them to keep producing in a down market?

Oil companies made decisions based on imperfect knowledge of the future (and of expected government regulation). There's no centrally planned "solution" to this, certainly not one Joe and Kamala could have foreseen.

The solution is to revoke the corporate charters of the oil companies and let the government take them over. In a dictatorship, this is a recipe for disaster. In a modern, stable republic, it's a recipe for prosperity.

Oil companies have betrayed the public trust on which their charters are based. They have poisoned our nation and our entire planet. They deserve the death penalty.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The solution is to revoke the corporate charters of the oil companies and let the government take them over. In a dictatorship, this is a recipe for disaster. In a modern, stable republic, it's a recipe for prosperity.

Oil companies have betrayed the public trust on which their charters are based. They have poisoned our nation and our entire planet. They deserve the death penalty.

The government running the oil companies is a recipe for prosperity? LOL? The government had a $2.8 trillion deficit last year. $2.8 TRILLION! The US postal service loses billions each year. Heck, the government could not even set up a website for Obamacare! They had to call in outside contractors to do the job. The government used to have a great military but the Liberals have now taken control of that and it is already starting to go to pot.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are saying our military is no good? I don't think you would get many to agree with you on that.

The Obamacare web site was done by a contractor from the very beginning. So that was a private firm that failed. Then the government took over and got the right people in there to fix it.

Oil companies can not be trusted. They are a threat to the well-being of all American citizens. Therefore, the government must protect the citizens from the oil companies. It's that simple.

You got it backwards on the website. Contractors came in AFTER the federal government was not able to do it on its own.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

You got it backwards on the website. Contractors came in AFTER the federal government was not able to do it on its own.

You are just wrong. The whole web site, both front end and back end, was developed by outside contractors from the very beginning. Those contractors failed. It was a failure by private enterprise. Look it up.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You are just wrong. The whole web site, both front end and back end, was developed by outside contractors from the very beginning. Those contractors failed. It was a failure by private enterprise. Look it up.

You can't just twist facts. Read this next line very carefully ...

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was IN CHARGE of building the site. The federal government was in charge. Not private contractors.

Link:www.mcall.com/news/watchdog/mc-obamaca...

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

You can't just twist facts. Read this next line very carefully ...

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was IN CHARGE of building the site. The federal government was in charge. Not private contractors.

Link:www.mcall.com/news/watchdog/mc-obamaca...

Development of the site was completely left up to outside contractors. The government only supplied the requirements.

There was not one single government programmer assigned to deliver any code at all. It was the private businesses that failed to deliver.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Development of the site was completely left up to outside contractors. The government only supplied the requirements.

There was not one single government programmer assigned to deliver any code at all. It was the private businesses that failed to deliver.

I worked for a major oil company. We would often bring in outside contractors to assist on projects. But employees would always oversee the contractors. The onus of the project's success was always on the employees overseeing the project.

agip wrote:

this is amazing - sasse saying Repubs engage in jackashery to get sound bites on cable....RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MAIN CABLE-SEEKING JACKASH OF THEM ALL. Cruz gets all shifty eyed when he realizes he is being called out.

Sasse is such a mixed character. He talks a good game but then submitted to trumpism when he really needed to show backbone. He's an actual conservative who could be a decent president. Unless his backbone melts again.

Tweet:twitter.com/CBSNews/status/15067269691...

Hardloper wrote:

agip wrote:

sure, we're agreed.

I'm pushing back against two things:

the pure faith conservatives have in markets

the myth that the rise in oil prices is due to Biden policy.

//

Although I would argue that having a state-owned oil company is the solution many countries choose. We've not gone that route.

Conservatives don't support free markets because they create a utopia with zero problems. They support free markets because they're better than the alternative. That's an important point.

Private oil industry is better for the US than a state owned oil company in a zillion different ways why virtually all the innovation in the oil industry happens here. So in making a point about conservatives supporting free markets you used an example where the free market is clearly the right choice.