you guys are focused on the wrong stuff. i would have much more important questions to ask than a gotcha question about numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
you guys are focused on the wrong stuff. i would have much more important questions to ask than a gotcha question about numbers.
Such as?Originally Posted by arkansasbob
I don't think it was a gotcha question. It was asked in the context of "what impact will releasing these barrels of oil from our SPR have on gas prices". That is supposedly their stated goal...to reduce the price of gas for the consumer. It's entirely a math thing, and the critical number here is how much we use to keep our economy rolling and consumers happy.
I would expect any serious discussions to start with that number, understand what the shortfall is (which would also include that number), and some remedy that would make sure we achieve that number. That number would likely be repeated thousands of times in any meeting and included in any documentation explaining the policy going forward, so the fact that she had no idea shows there was really no analysis associated with the proposal they offered. It was purely political narrative.
Now if they asked how much oil Idaho uses in the summer I could understand not having any idea.
i thought it was pretty clear that no analysis went into it. i guess asking that question is one way to expose that fact, but "oh my gosh she didn't even know that number" is a complaint that's easy to blow off. i guess it's easier to use as criticism than trying to explain in detail why their "plan" is terrible, but it's also less effective in my opinion.
OK, so what is your criticism of the plan?
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did SOME research until I heard that she was unaware of how much oil we actually use per day (and I didn't know either, but I am not the energy secretary trying to devise a plan to make sure oil and gasoline prices don't get out of hand).
TO be honest, given their lack of analysis, I don't think they have a plan at all. But I also don't expect some sycophant "journalist" to point that out and explain why their proposal will do nothing to reduce the price of energy. They just don't do it to their chosen one.
We are lucky someone even asked if she was aware of how many barrels of oil we use! Normally they just tuck tail and run.
my criticism is they don't have a plan. they are reacting to the bad consequences of their policies to date by adding more bad policies. that's the charitable take.
my fear is that they really do have a plan, and that plan is to drive up fuel prices to the point that electric cars and expensive alternative fuels start to make economic sense. a plan that's part of their bigger plan to upset the economy to the point that more people will be out of work and looking to the government for help. a plan that gives them totalitarian control to implement their utopian society.
but let's just assume for now that they are dumb and don't really have a plan at all...
We are in agreement.
Furthermore, the push to alternative fuels is going to make paupers out of a lot of the middle class (what's left of it). And what's left of society will be more dystopian than utopian, but I suppose as long as they are in control that's all that matters to them.
Which means we need to push hard for change in 2022. Hopefully, a hard push from conservatives will cause a stall in the democratic agenda and hopefully, in spite of the stall, we still flip Congress in a big way.
Based on the latest projections, and YES, since it is still a year away things can change, the GOP will hold both houses come 2023 with a 52-48 edge in the Senate and a 243-193 hold on the House. These are projections based on current information of who is seeking reelection, who isn't, and how the purple districts will swing next November.
Anything new to add to the list?
Nah.. can't really think of anything...
Y'all are funny!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote