Republicans are about to take their revenge on Joe Biden

[rogue06]

The extra revenue would go to actually servicing the debt, not just paying the interest.

Raising taxes for more revenue has more than once had the opposite effect as it can reduce production and hence revenue.

[RumTumTugger]

More to the point, how do star's sources explain why, if we are energy independent under old Joe as they claim, did Biden go begging, hat in hand, for oil from places like Venezuela and more notoriously Saudi Arabia? I mean star had to be aware of the snub heard 'round the world that the Saudi's responded with.

So how does that need to go begging for an increase in oil production, and being humiliated for the effort, fit into the narrative of the U.S. being energy independent? Energy independent means not having to beg other countries for more energy.

Well I guess we will have to wait for starlight to explain what kind of illogic his sources use to explain all that.

[Starlight]

We were energy independent when old Joe stumbled into the White House and on his first day started signing executive orders (while notorious muttering "what am I signing?"), including ones that ended that.

This is an indisputable fact.

More to the point, how do star's sources explain why, if we are energy independent under old Joe as they claim, did Biden go begging, hat in hand, for oil from places like Venezuela and more notoriously Saudi Arabia? I mean star had to be aware of the snub heard 'round the world that the Saudi's responded with.

So how does that need to go begging for an increase in oil production, and being humiliated for the effort, fit into the narrative of the U.S. being energy independent? Energy independent means not having to beg other countries for more energy.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't read the other threads where this has been explained, and that you're not deliberately making claims you know are false...

Here's a good article from last month on Forbes: U.S. Energy Independence Has Grown

I am often asked if the U.S. is energy independent, or whether we have ever been energy independent. A claim I frequently encounter is that President Trump made us energy independent, and we lost that under President Biden."...

If energy independence means we don't import oil, then that hasn’t been true since the 1940s. If it means we export more energy than we import, then we became energy independent in 2019 (following a decade of soaring oil and gas production), but we remain energy independent today.

Others may define energy independence as producing more than we consume. In that case, we reached that milestone in 2020. It was primarily a result of a sharp drop in consumption because of the Covid-19 pandemic, accompanied by a smaller drop in energy production that year. But, that milestone remained intact in 2021.

It is true that we achieved both of those energy independence milestones under President Trump. What isn’t true, is that it was because of anything special that he did. His energy policies may have helped a bit, but the primary cause was a surge in domestic oil and gas production that occurred as a result of the fracking boom ...[f]rom 2006 to 2016...

So President Trump didn’t make us energy independent. In fact, the gap between supply and demand substantially shrunk when President Obama was in office (again, because that’s when fracking really ramped up). But it would be fair to argue that President Trump’s energy policies slightly sped up the timeline in getting to the finish line of energy independence.

However, what isn’t true is that we lost that energy independence under President Biden.

Using the definition of exports minute imports, 2021 was our highest level of energy independence in history. In other words, we are even more energy independent than we were in 2019...

If you prefer the definition of production minus consumption, then we are also still energy independent...

If your preferred definition of energy independence is that we don’t import energy, as you can see from the graphic we haven’t come close to meeting that metric at any point since the 1950s. So, on an apples-to-apples comparison, depending on your definition we are either still energy independent, or we never were.

So going back to Rogue's claims. He claimed it is an 'indisputable fact' that the US was energy independent when Biden started in office. The article notes that one of the three possible definitions of energy independence (don't import oil) means the US wasn't energy independent when Biden came into office, so it is not 'indisputable'.

Second, Rogue keeps claiming that there was a change in energy independence from Trump to Biden. This claim is also false. Whichever of the three definitions of energy dependence you choose (1. export more energy than import; 2. producing more than is consumed; 3. Don't import oil), there was no change in its state going from Trump to Biden. If you choose to say Trump achieved energy independence by one of the 2 definitions under which that is true, then it is also true that Biden has kept the US energy independent.

Rogue in his later post seems to have switched to the 3rd definition of energy independence (don't import oil) when he claims "Energy independent means not having to beg other countries for more energy." If no oil imports is the definition, then Trump didn't achieve any energy independence.

In general Rogue and RumTumTugger don't seem to understand why, if the US produces more oil than it consumes and/or if it exports more oil than it imports, and is hence "energy independent" (under Trump and Biden), why any negotiation with the Saudi's over oil supply would be occur. The key concepts they seem to not understand here are that oil companies in the US are private companies who operate in a global market. If a US oil company can export oil to some other country and earn a buck more than selling the same oil in the US, they will export it. These companies do not, out of any patriotism, give special rates to US customers, or choose to supply the US market first. The US government could pass laws to make them do that, but they haven't. As a result of America being part of this global market for oil, rather than having regulations to stop oil companies exporting the oil, the price of oil in the US is determined by global supply and demand. This means that if another country starts producing more oil, the price for consumers across the entire globe and for consumers in the US goes down, and if another country (e.g. Saudi Arabia) starts producing less oil then the price for consumers across the entire globe and in the US goes up.

That the US is part of the global market is a choice that the US makes by allowing it's oil companies to be private and to export oil. The US could pass regulations to nationalize the oil companies, or to limit their exports, or to require them to supply X amount of oil to the US market at price Y before they were allowed to export the excess oil. But the US hasn't. The US has chosen the free market approach where the private oil companies are allowed to maximize profit by selling on the international market which means prices on the domestic market just reflect international prices because the whole global market then sets its price based on global supply and demand. This in turn means US consumers are affected by all global players (e.g. Saudi Arabia) who make choices around supply and demand, because US consumers pay the global price of oil regardless of their own country's level of production. In a global market being a local producer of a product doesn't change the cost of that product to consumers in your area.

Hope that makes clear where your misunderstandings are coming from.

[Starlight]

Energy independent means...

I hope you can understand the explanation I posted for Rogue and you above. I tried to keep it simple and clear.

Just goes to show that your PhD in Philosophy

My PhD is in a science field not philosophy. One of my undergrad majors was philosophy though.

Supply/demand and markets is economics however, not philosophy.

[Stoic]

Raise taxes, cut spending......debt fixed.

We've know that all along. And yet...

[Mountain Man]

Wrong order we should cut spending then if necessary raise taxes.

I would rather cut taxes and then cut spending until the government is spending less than what the are taking in taxes.

[Mountain Man]

Speaking of "energy independence":

When Biden speaks of energy independence, he means forcing a rapid transition to renewable energy technologies and aggressively phasing out conventional fuels. He has hijacked the phrase to rebrand his extremist climate agenda as a blueprint. To this end, the administration’s regulatory onslaught to force long-term transformation in both energy production and consumer demand has neither paused nor slowed.

On energy production, the administration continues to push policies that frustrate future oil, coal, and natural gas exploration, production, distribution, and investment, even as it saps taxpayers to boost subsidies for renewable energy R&D, investment, manufacturing and production, and infrastructure.

In his first month, Biden instituted a “moratorium” on energy production in regions of Alaska and a similar “pause” on federal lands and waters, despite clear directions from Congress. He removed streamlining and transparency reforms for federal permitting processes, which environmental extremists continue to weaponize in courts today to shut down new energy projects. Biden also reinstated the “social cost of carbon,” a shadow carbon tax enforced by regulators, not legislators. And he began nominating extremists with clear anti-energy agendas to fill out offices at the Department of Interior and elsewhere, such as Brian Deese as his National Economic Council director. Deese was formerly of BlackRock, the investment firm that has in many ways led the charge to shut out coal, oil, and natural gas companies—entirely legal industries—from the U.S. financial system. This is in addition to naming Gina McCarthy (of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan days) as White House national climate adviser and John Kerry (who has personally pressured banks to curb their work with oil and gas companies) as special climate envoy. While clearly setting administration policy, neither were ever Senate confirmed and evade any meaningful oversight from the public’s representatives in Congress. As they say, personnel is policy.

Meanwhile, the administration contradicts itself. In March, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told Wall Street to start investing in oil companies again, even as the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule that will make it risky and burdensome for anyone to invest in fossil fuel companies, ultimately choking off their access to capital. That Biden has authorized releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve three times in six months is emblematic of the degree to which he has backed U.S. energy policy into a corner—preferring to draw down reserves rather than send a clear signal that the United States is open for energy production.

[...]

In other words, the administration’s energy independence agenda embraces high consumer prices for conventional energy as a feature, not a bug. By appropriating terms such as “independence,” “clean,” and “innovation,” it presses on advancing costly policies that ultimately will eliminate conventional fuels by regulatory fiat. This should be no surprise—this self-imposed energy scarcity is exactly what Biden promised on the campaign trail when he told voters, “Look into my eyes: I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels.”

https://www.heritage.org/environment...s-energy-screw

[Starlight]

Speaking of "energy independence":

When Biden speaks of energy independence, he means...

A clue they're making stuff up: When they proclaim telepathic knowledge of what Biden 'really' means. Once they've done that they don't need to find actual quotes or actual evidence to prove their absurd claims, because they have this secret insight into the Real Truth of what he's Actually Thinking.

[CivilDiscourse]

A clue they're making stuff up: When they proclaim telepathic knowledge of what Biden 'really' means. Once they've done that they don't need to find actual quotes or actual evidence to prove their absurd claims, because they have this secret insight into the Real Truth of what he's Actually Thinking.

Well that's good. It means we can discount any democrat or liberal who starts using the phrase "dog whistle" for the very same reason.

I feel like you're ignoring the entire big issue of Dog whistle politics, which is massive in the US, whereby racists can come to understand that it's not acceptable to openly be racist, so develop code-words like 'states rights' and 'welfare reform' and 'school choice' to convey their shared racism to those in the know while refraining from literally wearing white robes.

And you can have situation where it's a little bit from both columns. e.g. you mention voter ID laws. What is in the mind of the average Republican leaning voter when they think about people who are 'voting illegally' and hence need to be ID'd? It's primarily the brown latino illegal immigrants they fictitiously imagine queuing up by the millions to vote democratic. It's not based in the reality that the majority of the dozen or so actual prosecutions nationwide of illegal voting have been white Americans voting Republican. So you have a situation that sits at the intersection of racism and wanting Republicans to win - a person could support the Republican voter ID policy who 100% wanted Republicans to win and was 0% racist, or who was 100% racist and 0% cared about Republicans winning, or any admixture of the two. The Republican positions pretty consistently just so happen to be ones that racists would want to support. They obviously can be supported by non-racists, but it's obviously awfully suspicious that they are equally positions that racists love.

I mean that's just one whole slew of "what they 'Really' mean" isn't it? I guess you LOVE making stuff up.

[Mountain Man]

A clue they're making stuff up: When they proclaim telepathic knowledge of what Biden 'really' means. Once they've done that they don't need to find actual quotes or actual evidence to prove their absurd claims, because they have this secret insight into the Real Truth of what he's Actually Thinking.

It's not telepathy, you dunce. If you bothered to read the rest of the analysis, you would know that it's based on what Joe has actually said and done.

[Cow Poke]

A clue they're making stuff up: When they proclaim telepathic knowledge of what Biden 'really' means.

You actually have a good point. I mean, even BIDEN doesn't know what Biden means, so how could anybody else?

[rogue06]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't read the other threads where this has been explained, and that you're not deliberately making claims you know are false...

Here's a good article from last month on Forbes: U.S. Energy Independence Has Grown

I am often asked if the U.S. is energy independent, or whether we have ever been energy independent. A claim I frequently encounter is that President Trump made us energy independent, and we lost that under President Biden."...

If energy independence means we don't import oil, then that hasn’t been true since the 1940s. If it means we export more energy than we import, then we became energy independent in 2019 (following a decade of soaring oil and gas production), but we remain energy independent today.

Others may define energy independence as producing more than we consume. In that case, we reached that milestone in 2020. It was primarily a result of a sharp drop in consumption because of the Covid-19 pandemic, accompanied by a smaller drop in energy production that year. But, that milestone remained intact in 2021.

It is true that we achieved both of those energy independence milestones under President Trump. What isn’t true, is that it was because of anything special that he did. His energy policies may have helped a bit, but the primary cause was a surge in domestic oil and gas production that occurred as a result of the fracking boom ...[f]rom 2006 to 2016...

So President Trump didn’t make us energy independent. In fact, the gap between supply and demand substantially shrunk when President Obama was in office (again, because that’s when fracking really ramped up). But it would be fair to argue that President Trump’s energy policies slightly sped up the timeline in getting to the finish line of energy independence.

However, what isn’t true is that we lost that energy independence under President Biden.

Using the definition of exports minute imports, 2021 was our highest level of energy independence in history. In other words, we are even more energy independent than we were in 2019...

If you prefer the definition of production minus consumption, then we are also still energy independent...

If your preferred definition of energy independence is that we don’t import energy, as you can see from the graphic we haven’t come close to meeting that metric at any point since the 1950s. So, on an apples-to-apples comparison, depending on your definition we are either still energy independent, or we never were.

So going back to Rogue's claims. He claimed it is an 'indisputable fact' that the US was energy independent when Biden started in office. The article notes that one of the three possible definitions of energy independence (don't import oil) means the US wasn't energy independent when Biden came into office, so it is not 'indisputable'.

Second, Rogue keeps claiming that there was a change in energy independence from Trump to Biden. This claim is also false. Whichever of the three definitions of energy dependence you choose (1. export more energy than import; 2. producing more than is consumed; 3. Don't import oil), there was no change in its state going from Trump to Biden. If you choose to say Trump achieved energy independence by one of the 2 definitions under which that is true, then it is also true that Biden has kept the US energy independent.

Rogue in his later post seems to have switched to the 3rd definition of energy independence (don't import oil) when he claims "Energy independent means not having to beg other countries for more energy." If no oil imports is the definition, then Trump didn't achieve any energy independence.

In general Rogue and RumTumTugger don't seem to understand why, if the US produces more oil than it consumes and/or if it exports more oil than it imports, and is hence "energy independent" (under Trump and Biden), why any negotiation with the Saudi's over oil supply would be occur. The key concepts they seem to not understand here are that oil companies in the US are private companies who operate in a global market. If a US oil company can export oil to some other country and earn a buck more than selling the same oil in the US, they will export it. These companies do not, out of any patriotism, give special rates to US customers, or choose to supply the US market first. The US government could pass laws to make them do that, but they haven't. As a result of America being part of this global market for oil, rather than having regulations to stop oil companies exporting the oil, the price of oil in the US is determined by global supply and demand. This means that if another country starts producing more oil, the price for consumers across the entire globe and for consumers in the US goes down, and if another country (e.g. Saudi Arabia) starts producing less oil then the price for consumers across the entire globe and in the US goes up.

That the US is part of the global market is a choice that the US makes by allowing it's oil companies to be private and to export oil. The US could pass regulations to nationalize the oil companies, or to limit their exports, or to require them to supply X amount of oil to the US market at price Y before they were allowed to export the excess oil. But the US hasn't. The US has chosen the free market approach where the private oil companies are allowed to maximize profit by selling on the international market which means prices on the domestic market just reflect international prices because the whole global market then sets its price based on global supply and demand. This in turn means US consumers are affected by all global players (e.g. Saudi Arabia) who make choices around supply and demand, because US consumers pay the global price of oil regardless of their own country's level of production. In a global market being a local producer of a product doesn't change the cost of that product to consumers in your area.

Hope that makes clear where your misunderstandings are coming from.

You pretty much shot your own argument in the foot with this reply. Do you not understand how?

[Starlight]

Well that's good. It means we can discount any democrat or liberal who starts using the phrase "dog whistle" for the very same reason.

Dog Whistling is a widespread phenomena documented over multiple decades by many serious analyses of dozens, if not hundreds, of different Republican's politicians words, and is evidenced by quotes from Republican politicians themselves saying this is what they were doing.

By contrast to that, MM's article is one person saying "I Totally Know what Biden Really Means", with no actual evidence that they do. That's a completely different level of lack of evidence.

I'm flattered that you pay such close attention to my posts that you remember one I wrote four years ago. Or perhaps you specifically remember that one because it hit home to you for your own dog whistling?

[Starlight]

You pretty much shot your own argument in the foot with this reply. Do you not understand how?

I'm sure you'll explain why 1+1=an orange, like you normally do, but do tell what you think is the problem and I'll correct you further.

[CivilDiscourse]

Dog Whistling is a widespread phenomena documented over multiple decades by many serious analyses of dozens, if not hundreds, of different Republican's politicians words, and is evidenced by quotes from Republican politicians themselves saying this is what they were doing.

By contrast to that, MM's article is one person saying "I Totally Know what Biden Really Means", with no actual evidence that they do. That's a completely different level of lack of evidence.

I'm flattered that you pay such close attention to my posts that you remember one I wrote four years ago. Or perhaps you specifically remember that one because it hit home to you for your own dog whistling?

A clue they're making stuff up: When they proclaim telepathic knowledge of what someone 'really' means.

That is what happens when someone declares dog whistling, they consult the tea leaves and declare what they "really" meant.