Comments for Oregon Tax News http://oregontaxnews.com Sponsored by the Taxpayer Foundation of Oregon Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:39:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 Comment on 2005 — The Year of Political Incivility by Ashley Valerie Mitchell http://oregontaxnews.com/2005/12/29/2005-the-year-of-political-incivility/#comment-24 Ashley Valerie Mitchell Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:23:28 +0000 http://oregontaxnews.wordpress.com/?p=61#comment-24 Well, this was written in 2005, and since then it seems that not only liberals are sour about how our President represents us. Liberals don't have a monopoly on political incivility now and they didn't then. And isn't absolute value a mathematical thing? A stronger argument for your case could be made with some better terminology. Using insults such as 'uppity' when describing liberals is really stereotypical. Extremists don't define liberals any more than arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant writers such as the one that wrote the above tirade on people who refuse to adjust to the immoral policies of a leader that is a member of the Skull & Bones and not at all in touch with the reality of a person who isn't born into a wealthy, elite, and secretive way of life. Well, this was written in 2005, and since then it seems that not only liberals are sour about how our President represents us. Liberals don’t have a monopoly on political incivility now and they didn’t then. And isn’t absolute value a mathematical thing? A stronger argument for your case could be made with some better terminology. Using insults such as ‘uppity’ when describing liberals is really stereotypical. Extremists don’t define liberals any more than arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant writers such as the one that wrote the above tirade on people who refuse to adjust to the immoral policies of a leader that is a member of the Skull & Bones and not at all in touch with the reality of a person who isn’t born into a wealthy, elite, and secretive way of life.

]]> Comment on Secretary of State has it wrong on drilling by Edward http://oregontaxnews.com/2008/09/17/secretary-of-state-has-it-wrong-on-drilling/#comment-18 Edward Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:53:15 +0000 http://oregontaxnews.wordpress.com/?p=73#comment-18 On the point over increasing energy demand, you and Bradbury are both correct. An increase in supply would result in lower prices in the short term, but lower prices would in turn increase demand in the long term. Cheap energy always spurs economic growth but the new larger economy results in a need for more and more energy. Your claim that more drilling only increases supply would only be true if the economy was frozen and static (I assume you support drilling not just as a way to lower energy costs but also to keep the economy growing). Your disagreement with Bradbury seems to be how to get to cheaper energy and whether the type of energy that makes up the supply is important, not over the basics of supply and demand. In addition, you seem to falsely equate the granting of a lease to drill with actual drilling. Even if we grant lots of new leases to drill, how do we mandate that drilling actually proceed? There is always a certain amount of overhead and up front cost to any new drilling activity and the market itself will cause oil companies to drill when prices are high. However, as prices come down drilling becomes less profitable and new drilling less likely (that's how we get the traditional up and down in the markets). New leases, by themselves will not prevent the free market. If you really want long-lasting cheap energy the only way is to artificially tinker with the free market (drilling subsidies, etc.). Are you in favor forcing the hand of oil companies to actually proceed with drilling when the free market doesn't cause them to? If so you end up not too far away from nationalized energy companies. My overall point is that this issue is a lot more complex than you make it sound. If more drilling was the answer, than why haven't past oil drilling booms solved the problem (because we always need more). So, to say that drilling is the answer now only makes sense in a very short term outlook or in a world with unlimited oil. What do you think the long-term solution to our energy needs is? When does more drilling cease to be sufficient? 10 years? 50 years? Infinity? On the point over increasing energy demand, you and Bradbury are both correct. An increase in supply would result in lower prices in the short term, but lower prices would in turn increase demand in the long term. Cheap energy always spurs economic growth but the new larger economy results in a need for more and more energy. Your claim that more drilling only increases supply would only be true if the economy was frozen and static (I assume you support drilling not just as a way to lower energy costs but also to keep the economy growing). Your disagreement with Bradbury seems to be how to get to cheaper energy and whether the type of energy that makes up the supply is important, not over the basics of supply and demand.

In addition, you seem to falsely equate the granting of a lease to drill with actual drilling. Even if we grant lots of new leases to drill, how do we mandate that drilling actually proceed? There is always a certain amount of overhead and up front cost to any new drilling activity and the market itself will cause oil companies to drill when prices are high. However, as prices come down drilling becomes less profitable and new drilling less likely (that’s how we get the traditional up and down in the markets). New leases, by themselves will not prevent the free market. If you really want long-lasting cheap energy the only way is to artificially tinker with the free market (drilling subsidies, etc.). Are you in favor forcing the hand of oil companies to actually proceed with drilling when the free market doesn’t cause them to? If so you end up not too far away from nationalized energy companies.

My overall point is that this issue is a lot more complex than you make it sound. If more drilling was the answer, than why haven’t past oil drilling booms solved the problem (because we always need more). So, to say that drilling is the answer now only makes sense in a very short term outlook or in a world with unlimited oil. What do you think the long-term solution to our energy needs is? When does more drilling cease to be sufficient? 10 years? 50 years? Infinity?

]]>