Smedley_buzkill wrote:
NBC polls are conducted by the left. Period. Almost any poll they conduct will show a bias toward that end.
What bias?
The survey asks people who they want to vote for, then they ask what their top two issue are. They put it all together and publish the results. At what point do you see bias becoming an issue?
If there is anything being "conducted by the left" you could say it's the argument that I am making in reference to the poll because that's where MY bias comes in, which is certainly left of where YOU are. I'm telling everyone how *I* am reading it. The poll itself is indifferent.
nice entry though - come out swingin' ;)
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
As for drilling for oil, you should do your homework a little better. By that, I mean do it period rather than rely on what you consider your infallible opinion. Development of a site can take as little as 4 or 5 years, to actual drilling.
I'm not you buzzy... I use a wide range of sources to triangulate. It's different from subscription loyalty. You should try it. As for development, it doesn't matter that it CAN take as little as 4 or 5 years, the average is over 10. And since most of the oil we have left is in reserves that require additional technologies, like fracking, the odds lean heavy on MORE than 10 years.
But why bicker? Let's just say 4 or 5 years... Fine. How long has Biden been in office? When did inflation happen? Excuse me, can 4 or 5 years of development happen in 3 years of Biden policy and can that ALL happen in 2021 when inflation shot up? 'Cause if all that can happen you got a solid theory on how Biden's energy policy caused that inflation!
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
It's like prospecting; the more land (or offshore) that you investigate the more likely you are to find a producing site. Kind of hard to do when Biden has reduced the amount of land leased to a fraction of what it was, and raised the price or royalties by 50%, plus raised minimum bids from $2 to $10/acre.
When Biden took office only 24% of the leases for oil were on federal land. So it's not the end of prospecting little Miss Drama, but he *is* also pushing for more investment in renewable sources of energy. There's going to be a curve. You might be screaming and kicking, but we are continuing down the slope of the oil peak. Not because of Biden, but because it's time. Our energy mix is always evolving, it was wood for the longest time, then coal, then oil and on each turn you had disrupted industries screaming and kicking. All kinds of reports about how coal isn't as good as wood, or how oil is more dangerous than coal... So feel free to rapid fire some links to stories, it doesn't matter, they are the same stories, different day.
Energy is just in too much abundance for us not to figure out how to tap it without having to get it from rocks.
Biden is trimming the sails and you people are freaking out like its the end of the world.
That was a different time... we haven't even hit our oil peak yet.
I just get tired of posting sources each of the million times I have to explain things to working-class conservatives. The patterns are so familiar now, like the problem with your Newsweek article... Our discussion was about inflation adjusted income the Newsweek article isn't.
I mean... simple things, buzzy... there's income, there's inflation and there's inflation-adjusted income.
OK, well at least there's something to talk about. Just to be clear, my statement was that the only way to deflate is to cancel debt. I only used student debt as an example of an effort to try it. My theory about this is my own... It's under development and it's experimental...
1. Start with the axiom that you inflate the money supply by adding dollars...
2. Make the logical assumption that to reverse the process (deflate) you would need to take dollars out.
3. Add the fractional reserve banking rules that says they only need 10% of what they're going to loan and the rest can be printed out of thin air.
4. Therefore, during the early part of the term when you're paying more in interest than on principle, most of the debt is still made out of
new money that has not actually been earned yet. It's real enough to create inflation, but no one has actually worked for it.
5. If this seems weird, it's because it's the Federal Reserve. This only plays out when the member banks are loaning the money. So it happens when the U.S. Treasury borrows the money from the Federal Reserve. When the federal government turns around and loans it to the student the rules change because now the federal government is loaning the money and they don't have that special power to make money out of thin air. Only the Federal Reserve does.
So if the federal government cancels the student debt, it's added to the deficit, then probably piled on the national debt and yes, the tax payers will have to pay for it. The bankers love that. They get all the money for free and the interest probably makes up for the 10% they needed in reserves.
If the federal government can negotiate a debt cancellation with the Federal Reserve... I believe we could deflate the money supply and return value to each dollar. The bankers in the Fed would be the ones eating the debt, but that money was never earned. If they can snap their fingers and make $30,000 appear out of thin air. They can snap their fingers and make $30,000 disappear and nothing earned will have been lost.
'Problem there is all the helicopter/yacht tycoons that LIKE all that new money in the economy, even at deflated values, because they own such large percentages of the total.
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Like I said, no wonder you never bother with sources. Why should you when you have your own condescending and mostly incorrect opinions to rely on?
OK, wiseguy - here's why I think your trip about sources is BS. You use sources as a crutch, because you're not smart enough, or too lazy (I don't know which) to actually have this conversation with me using your own brain power. So you search for headlines that YOU think will provide smart answers to my challenges. I can tell because you don't actually make the slightest reference to the content... You don't summarize or explain anything about the article. When I use sources it's to provide a reference to what I am basing my argument on. You don't provide an argument. The ONLY thing you provide is a link to a headline that *seems* relevant.
Don't it personally, it's what I tell everyone that does that.
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
In the words of one of my favorite authors, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as you really are.
Oh, is that Dr. Seuss?