Re: Should voting be mandatory ?
posted at 6/19/2013 4:18 PM EDT
In response to bigdog2's comment:
Looks like you forgot this part of my post? Reading is fundamental.
Reading is fundamentall, yes. I suppose that's why you ignored every factual and logical point I made, except the one that any benefit from the pipeline would take years? (That is, when you weren't just insulting me)
Pipeline and oil prices
First, the pipeline just moves the stuff so it can be sold more efficiently in different locations. It does not increase the amount of stuff taken out of the ground and therefore becomming part of the total consumed across the globe.
Second, even if it did - and it doesn't - increase the total amount of oil available on the world market, you need to look at what OPEC does and would do. OPEC would simply cut production to maintain levels of supply, thereby maintaining levels of price.
In other words: The world oil market is not your textbook context-free market. The price of oil is not the intersection of all possible supply with demand. It is the intersection of artificially restricted supply and demand.
Third, They have to actually build the pipeline before the oil would flow and that takes time. As well as set up deals with refineries, etc. (The one point you responded to with either a logical point or actual evidence. Note: "go research for me" isn't evidence)
The pipeline simply wouldn't affect world oil prices. It can't, not as long as OPEC is controlling so much of the supply.
Pipeline and job creation.
Compare the number of jobs you are claiming the building of the pipeline would temporarily create....with the number of people looking for work and unable to find it.....and with the number of people who gave up looking.
Do I have to do your homework for you?
11,760,000 unemployed individuals in what is deemed the Labor Force of 155,658,000 = unemployment rate of 7.6%
Your most rose-colored glasses figure would reduce that to that to 11,507,000 of 155,658,000 = 7.4%
Your least rose-colored glasses figure would reduce it to 11,742,000 = 7.54%
So really, this just shows how grandoise your claim is (and regularly are).
The pipeline would have a incrimental effect at best on unemployment rate at best and an insignificant one at worst, and that wouldn't necessarily be for years.
Yet here you are telling us that McCain and Palin would have saved America by approving the pipeline and by other unspecified means.
McCain would have focused on JOBS
You seem to claim that they wouldn't have focused on healthcare, but both McCain and Obama agreed that (a) the economy and (b) health care reform were the two most vital things. That's what all their debates were about. There's no basis to speculate that McCain would have focused (succesfully) on jobs simply because you think Obama should have, but failed, to single-handedly save the economy.
Only one thing is certain: McCain is not Obama, and therefore the GOP would not have circulated a memo before inauguration instructing the rank and file to oppose everything he did in order to "break him."
So he probably could have gotten legislation passed much more easily...... but whether it would have worked? What it would have been? Heh. You can't assume it would have been good because you think Obama is bad.
If everyone who voted for Obama is a "dim bulb," as according to your insult, then surely someone as smaht as you can tell us what McCain would have done to save the day.
I mean... you voted for him, right? And you aren't a "dim bulb" like me?