A moronic Libertarian solution to gas prices

This is an article, and I use the term loosely, in which a person not only denies reality, physics, geology, and basic politics, but also assumes that you have no access to actual knowledge. My rebuttals follow each ridiculously stupid point. This must have been written by a Ron Paul supporter.



Speaking of bumper stickers, remember “Yes We Can”, Mr. President? No one understands the concept better than the oil and gas industry. The main thing holding domestic energy companies back from making a stronger commitment to future domestic supplies is uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty, avoids it like the plague. Your rhetoric may appease your doctrinaire base, but it makes domestic energy producers hold back, fearful that you will punish their success, or that you will change the rules on them in the middle of the game.
Erasing uncertainty is the #1 thing you can do as a national leader if you truly desire to lower gasoline prices. Not only could it change the psychology of energy investing, there is still time for companies to change their 2012 investment plans.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.

This is my response to this flaming moron. His statements and words are in italics, mine are normal. I find this to be good because his are based in fantasy land and mine are… well… based in reality.

1)Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.

Fuck NO! The Keystone pipeline will be based on previous designs, all of which leak routinely and some, like the Wyoming pipeline (same company), leaked 12 times in the first year and a half alone. This pipeline is meant to be built directly above/through North America’s largest aquifer. Add to this that this oil will not be destined for USA gasoline, it is marked for export. America’s number one manufactured export is gasoline. If you want the gas prices to lower, insist that oil companies be forced to pay export fees. You’ll suddenly see prices drop due to available excess.
Opening ANWAR, which btw is being drilled as I type this, to unrestrained drilling will do nothing but destroy a region and ecosystem. Already we produce enough gasoline to have it as our number one manufactured export. Rather than promote policies that allow oil companies to destroy more land, why don’t we insist that the results be used and available here?

2)Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.

They are us? Are you fucking kidding me? The oil companies pay dividends to a very small group of investors. Koch and friends have paid for politicians and governors in numerous states who have ended union, retirement, and investment accounts.
Yes, the government should step in when insider trading and monopolies gouge the common folk. That is actually written in to every facet of American law… right up until this recent mockery of a Supreme Court. Not only this, but one fact seems to escape the standard moron… errmmm…. Libertarian…. talking points. Obama has granted more drilling allowances and permits than Shrub did, after less than four years.

3)Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.
Taxes do two things that should happen! They force companies to pay for public resources that the companies exploit and encourage other activities.

Drilling is not the goddamn issue!
The issue is that speculators and oil companies have an agenda, and that agenda is taking your money. This is not some mysterious lack of product or production, it is gouging. If you want more drilling, demand that some of what we produce stays here in America. Then, when we have a glut, argue that we need more drilling.

4)Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.

This isn’t an issue of revenue. The top oil companies paid less in total federal taxes than a single warehouse worker. They paid none. In fact, they received subsidies. Not only that, they also accepted many tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds. Quit the lie about government revenue, the tax-payers are hemorrhaging money to oil companies, both at the pump and when we pay taxes.

5)Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.

More Libertarian claptrap. This is not even slightly truthful or based in reality. Industry needs to be controlled by a firm national structure; or else Gingrich, Romney, and Paul will get their wish and small children will again be forced to work in mines and fields.

6)Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.

More bullshit. A company that earned $60 billion in a single quarter of a year and tossed much of the cost of this particular cleanup onto the American taxpayer doesn’t give a damn about that spill. It still hasn’t refunded the government or even paid out 1/10 of suits that have been found against it. Ron Paul is Barney Fife, I prefer to have real policing organisations against these corporations.

7)Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace. Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.

WTF? The rational, science knowledgeable, concerned people are upset at Obama for allowing so much drilling! He is set to break records for allowances! Yet again: Our number one manufactured export is gasoline! Production is not the issue!

8)Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.

No. Absolutely not. Places like Texas and Arizona would be deathtraps. Geologic features might change, but geology doesn’t. Fracking destroys land and water tables, this isn’t up for debate and no credible scientist says that it is. There is no possible development that would make fracking worthwhile. It’s like murdering a child so that she never get her heart broken, a very fucked up concept.

9)Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]

I think this incredible stupidity has been addressed well enough above.

10)Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.

Holy Hell! I can’t believe this nonsense is still being promoted! Natural gas is “cleaner,” not clean. Fracking and other extraction methods destroy water tables and regions and burning the gas emits tonnes of pollutants. Less than coal and oil, but nowhere near clean.

Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said: “You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.

And here I end, with a very serious guffaw at the disingenuous liar that wrote this article. We have a president that is working very hard to promote alternative fuels and resources and is being blocked on every level. This writer’s interpretation seems to be that since Obama isn’t god, and can change the opposition on demand, he needs to be replaced by one of the fuckwits running for rethuglican candidate.

The War on Religion

Catholic view: The death penalty is immoral.
Liberal view: I agree.
Conservative view: We'll just have to disagree.

Catholic view: Anti-immigrant laws are immoral.
Liberal view: I agree.
Conservative view: We'll just have to disagree.

Catholic view: Torture is immoral.
Liberal view: I agree.
Conservative view: We'll just have to disagree.

Catholic view: Society should care for the poor.
Liberal view: I agree.
Conservative view: We'll just have to disagree.

Catholic view: Contraceptives are immoral.
Liberal view: I disagree.
Conservative view: OMG This liberal is waging war on religious freedom!!

Cremation and Education

I’m a firm supporter of cremation. There are two reasons, one obvious and one might not be.
1) It’s far better to not take up space and rot inside containers meant to prevent your body from returning to the general pool of resource that we all came from.
2) What better way to explain the basic concepts of chemistry and reality than to have a child be able to see the basic components of a loved family member? That might sound odd, but think about it.

When your loved one dies, you have a choice. Bury or burn. If you bury, a child might have a place to visit once in a while, but no real connection to the death or to the science behind it. If you cremate, you can have a vessel that contains the most basic components of a loved one. Explaining how humans are built from a limited number of elements, and how those elements survive or don’t survive immolation can be a very educational factor.
Too many children are fed platitudes and bullshit when a death occurs. Take the opportunity to allow your family's children to experience the remains in a non-gruesome fashion. Give them an attachment to chemistry and reality at the same time. Let them become accustomed to loss by not actually losing all of the person that died.

Concepts and Misperceptions of Butter

One of the sad ironies of the modern age is the fact that people think I Can't Beleive It's Not butter and "Movie Butter Popcorn" tastes like butter. They simply don't. It's odd when I make a dish using real butter and someone complains about my using a margarine. Much like my generation grew up thinking that Sullivan said "Really big shew" when he never did, the current generation doesn't even know what butter tastes like because the butter alternatives have created a misconception!

Behe is not a scientist.

I always want to laugh when people refer to Michael Behe as a scientist. He isn't. A scientist makes an observation, questions the why and wherefore, comes up with a hypothesis that encompasses known facts and data, tests all possible facts and data (especially that which might disprove the hypothesis), and then reworks the hypothesis. Rinse. Repeat.

Behe does not, and never has, done this. He starts with a concept and then only includes data to support his preconceived notions. He has even admitted he only went to university in order to disprove evolution from the inside. It didn't work, of course.

Help for a Home

I'm recently homeless and trying to raise money for a deposit on an apartment. I intend to use this money for that and possibly a car repair, any more than that will be donated to The Opportunity Council here in Bellingham, Washington. The Opportunity Council helps low income and homeless people pay for energy, move-in costs, and other aids yet are chronically underfunded.

edit: I have a deposit partially paid, and I'm incredibly grateful for all of the help. My ex has decided to kick me viciously while I'm down, so some of any money donated may go for legal filing expenses in order that I see my kids. It has been months since last I saw them, and looks to be many months more. Again, thank you everyone for the help and encouragement, it matters more than I can ever describe adequately.

My Response to Ron Paul

This is my response to Ron Paul on his “plan.” I’m not a fanboy or Paulbot, so if you are you should probably stop reading. I’m also not an objectivist,  as he is. I’m nowhere near selfish enough and have a grounding in reality, as well as knowledge of history, so Objectivism holds no allure for me.

Another reason that I have no love for the man as a candidate, is is opposition to established rights for minorities and women and children. Yes yes... I know. He refuses to say that he'll chain women in kitchens and blacks in cotton fields, yet he has no problem destroying protections and laws that prohibit discrimination. He uses the ridiculous "state's rights" line instead. So if Texas wants to use capital punishment on women who have a miscarriage, it's just AOK with him. If a state decides to cap wages for labourers at 50cents per day, and nearly all of them are black, he'd be just fine with it. Being that companies will be allowed to hire whomever they choose and he cares nothing for education, we can also look forward to children in mines and fields from dawn til dusk, because companies might decide that adults are too much trouble. 

My comments are all in bold and his are italicised but otherwise unaltered and unedited from his article.

PAUL: One year to go

By Rep. Ron Paul -The Washington Times Thursday, November 3, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/one-year-to-go/?page=1

I firmly believe the American people are serious about cutting spending and fixing our debt crisis now. Those struggling to make ends meet and provide for their families while also trying to save for the future know we must change course immediately.

While this might be true to some extent, planning on giving away what little people do have left to corporations and billionaires will work directly against the very people who are struggling. Only in the imaginary “Libertarian Land” will allowing corporations to own everything and repealing any and all worker protections be a good thing for anyone except the millionaires and billionaires... a club to which I can’t help but notice that you belong.

I’m not running for president merely to trim a little here and there from our bloated federal budget. Instead, I have offered the boldest, most specific and most comprehensive solutions in the history of American politics to restore our economy and once again make America the most innovative, competitive and prosperous nation in the world.

Yes it is bold and comprehensive, yet neither of those actually mean that it would work. The over-whelming majority of economists, both world wide and domestic, have read your plan and condemned it. Even though your fan club insists that a “We Hate Paul” campaign is the reason, the real reason is that some people are far better educated than you and have actually made efforts to understand economics and history.

We face no problem that cannot be solved by reaffirming our trust in the fundamental principles of freedom, limited constitutional government and individual responsibility.

The Constitution is often referred to, rightly, as a living document.  The reason for this is simple, we are no longer a loose collection of states held together by treaty alone. In the early days of America the problems were simple and as a result we have a rather simple constitution. Your problem Ron, is that you do not see the current world as any more complex than a few million people bound together only by a desire to no longer be a colony of England.

The nation has changed. We have watched corporations and governments destroy environments, enslave people, murder people, and prevent common members of society from benefitting from the American experience. Through governmental changes and constitutional amendments we have stopped much of the destruction and abuse that you wish to see continue.

As a candidate, I pledge that not only will my first 100 days as president be dedicated to reinstituting these core values from the moment I take my oath but that my entire time in office will be devoted to protecting our liberties and removing the burden of an out-of-control government from the people’s backs.

Read above…

Starting on Day One, I will begin implementing my Plan to Restore America, which cuts $1 trillion in spending during my presidency’s first year alone and delivers a fully balanced budget by Year 3.

This is exactly why you are accused of having no ideas other than “Sunshine and Lollipop” concepts. This act alone, removing 1 trillion dollars from the economy, would devastate America. It would make the recent recession look like a view of heaven. The “3year” plan is just nonsense. I’m sorry to inform you, but you will have to get all of this through congress, and none of them like you. You will have no political capital to work with and you will be demanding that Congress, that place you show up to work at once in a while, abrogate their responsibilities and jobs to you.

This plan is about priorities. Politicians play a game in which they give lip service to the voters’ concerns only to sacrifice a strong national defense, the needs of our veterans and the promises made to our seniors at the altar of attaining more power once in office.

I don’t disagree that our veterans are treated poorly and that seniors are also. I’m also in agreement that politicians should stop paying lip service to constituents. Yet, how are you different? You make grand statements and say that you stand for Americans while your policies and cuts will do only one thing, disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and make most people virtual slaves of corporations… except for those who will be actual slaves.

I will lead a national discussion on how we might tweak cuts, and I will work with coalitions to make them in the fairest way possible and to plan the necessary transitions.

Either you are lying here, or you lied above. You have led no discussions, you have done the exact opposite. Economists and others who have an understanding of money and economies have all panned you soundly. Not for “bucking the trend” or whatever else you and your supporters claim, but for your plan being impossible and destructive. Perhaps you should have actually spoken to an economist before making this plan? Perhaps trying to make a coalition in your current job?

A Paul presidency will deny the politically connected the spot they have carved out at the American people’s expense. By immediately repealing such regulatory nightmares as Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, we will start to break the corporatism that places special interests over the average American.

And here you present two opposing concepts together as if they were the same. Removing restrictions and regulations will INCREASE corporatism, as nearly any sane person could tell you.

Your resistance to healthcare options outside of the corporate system we currently have will do nothing to help Americans and everything to harm them. Because you seem to know so little on the topic, let me explain.  We spend, as a nation, far more than other developed nations on healthcare, generally by twice or thrice. Our life expectancy is less, infant mortality greater, and cure rates below the other nations. Contrary to right-wing lies, we spend longer waiting for treatment and receive far less in actual healthcare when we are finally allowed to get the treatments. You wouldn’t know this, due to being part of the moneyed elite that has no such concerns, but more than two hundred million people in this nation have or will have these issues.

I am opposed to your desire to keep the insurance companies in charge of the very real death panels that other libertarians and conservatives pretend exist in other nations.

My administration will fight for requirements styled after the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) to ensure all new bureaucratic regulations are thoroughly reviewed and approved by Congress before taking effect. I also will cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by executive order.

Yet again, you insist on having powers and abilities outside of the office of President.

I will move to abolish all corporate subsidies and end all bailouts.

I’m not opposed to removing most subsidies and many bailouts that allow executives to hoard money and grant enormous bonuses. I have yet to see any glimmer of understanding from you in regards to the difference between subsidies or stimulus plans that help industry and America and those that do nothing but prop up the oligarchs. Not everything you call a bailout is bad and many subsidies work to keep America moving forward technologically.

As we work to cut $1 trillion in the first year, my budget will eliminate the Departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. Functions that cannot be abolished immediately will be transferred to other departments.

Here you simply betray a vast ignorance and a strong desire to keep all wealth and power in the hands of your fellow millionaires and billionaires. Removing the department of education will do more to separate the states in our currently cohesive union and cause dramatic differences in education levels. The southern states and some Midwest states will regress towards scientifically and historically illiterate populations at the same time your removal of workers protections will make these victims of your plan into little more than slaves, of the style of the mining companies from the 1800’s.

Removing the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development will insure that millions of Americans will have few options other than sheet metal and plywood clap-together homes in Pottervilles around America. It would also allow sprawl and environmental devastation on a scale that would make the meanest third world nation gasp in sadness. I realize that you care nothing about the environment and see and unspoiled landscape as a waste of space, but people that understand environmental studies, food production, etc. all shudder at the thought of your plans.

I plan to answer the call of the vast majority of Americans for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, and I will work with Congress to pass competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

Literally every part of your plan will do nothing other than bankrupt the nation and crash the dollar as a currency.

I will lead the way toward restoring a sensible and constitutionally conservative foreign policy by ending all foreign aid, nation-building and participation in organizations that threaten our national sovereignty, while honoring our commitment to our veterans, who deserve what they have sacrificed to earn.

Your obsessive need to declare “all” of something bad should make any thinking person cringe. Do we support nations and regimes that we oughtn’t? Of course. But we also keep many nations strong and relevant on the world stage. Without our foreign aid, most of Africa would be either dead from famine and disease or held by terrorists. Nations in Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere all benefit from one degree or another by our aid, to the final benefit of America and a stable and productive world.

Your desire to remove America from organisations, we all know you mean the UN, that is just ridiculous. By participating in the UN we share the benefits. Should we have a complaint against another nation the UN is there to mediate and moderate. When we need to gain an economic advantage, the UN is there to assist. When we want to benefit from a treaty, that is when the UN is handy. Yes, it sometimes means that we must also sacrifice time or money, but it is to benefit all of the world. Your desire to close borders and isolate America is at best short-sighted and actually harmful to both America and the world.

The looming entitlement crisis can be addressed without breaking our nation’s promises to our seniors. Younger workers will be allowed to opt out of Social Security so they can properly invest for their futures, while money saved from reining in our government will be used to sustain those currently depending on Social Security funds.

There is no “looming entitlement crisis,” that is an invention of the right-wing. Social Security is solvent and needs to be altered only slightly on a routine basis to stay so. Allowing investing of money in something else is, yet again, short-sighted at best. In this recent recession millions of people lost billions of dollars. Why do you want that to continue? Corporations have made dozens of billions of dollars from fraud and cheating in the investment markets. Why do you want them to also have the amount that people will need later? Investment is not some magic concept that will allow people to save and support themselves. Investing nearly only helps you and your wealthy friends. Stop trying to convince people to sacrifice their future so that you and your buddies can steal what we have actually earned.

The expanding cost of Medicaid and other welfare programs will be tackled without harming those relying on such programs by giving states block grants to give them the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems individually.

I’m so tired of hearing about “state’s rights.” As seems to be the case on nearly everything you say, you have no idea what you would unleash… unless perhaps you are malicious and know exactly what you will unleash. In no manner or fashion do I find your desire to give states a block grant without a federal supervisory dept. in place to be good. Mississippians could find themselves being sent to workfarms to pay medical debts and asylums or state “hospitals” for the ill and diseased. Texans could find themselves being executed for getting sick. Your desire to relinquish to the states all control would make these ridiculous statements quite likely.

My administration will reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent, slash congressional pay and perks and curb excessive federal travel. As president, I will stand with the people by taking a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median income of average American workers..

So, just to be clear, your plan for an anemic jobs economy is to dump a few million more people into the pool of the unemployed?

Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent will make America competitive globally, and I will allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. I also will work to extend all of the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the death tax and end taxes on all personal savings so families can build nest eggs.

Lowering the corporate tax rate will do nothing except remove even more money from the economy. The corporate tax rate is lower now than it has been in decades. It is FAR lower than the boom years of the 40’-60’s. Extending the tax cuts on yourself and your golf buddies will do nothing to help America. If they would have a positive effect, you’d think that they might have shown some semblance of existing over the last decade.

This insane desire for corporations and billionaires to stop getting taxed benefits only them. If you were either intelligent or honest you would know this.

I am often asked how I expect to accomplish such goals, but I am confident that due to the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the veto and, most important, the united voice of the freedom-loving Americans who voted me into office, the real pressure will be on those who support the status quo to defend their reckless big-government agenda.

And this is why I question the sanity of people that support you. You have your taglines and your plan to benefit the wealthy, but nearly no one of consequence supports you. There is no “united voice” in your favour. The few who will vote for you do so knowing that they are wasting their vote.

I am the only candidate with a serious plan to cut spending, balance the budget and promote freedom and prosperity, and I hope you will join me in working to restore America now.

You do not have a serious plan, you have a Randian bundle of bullshit that will do one thing and one thing only: Destroy my nation. Go away Objectivist, the majority of Americans are far too intelligent to vote for you, and even most of those who will vote for you fill their arguments with “Well ya, that part sucks and this part is bad and that other thing would be terrible... but look at his idea on pot!"