Seriously? These guys should stay in charge of our government?

[Brendan]

Justice Department Official Awards $500,000 Grant to Golf Group

A senior Justice Department official says a $500,000 federal grant to the World Golf Foundation is an appropriate use of money designed to deal with juvenile crime in America.

"We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids, golf is the hook," said J. Robert Flores, the administrator of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

The Justice Department, in a decision by Flores, gave the money to the World Golf Foundation's First Tee program, even though Justice Department staffers had rated the program 47th on a list of 104 applicants. The allegations were first reported earlier this year by the trade journal Youth Today.

Many top-rated programs were denied federal grants.

A program to help troubled teens in San Diego, Vista, was ranked number two by the staff out of 202 applicants in its category of prevention and intervention but was turned down for a grant to help deal with inner city teen violence in San Diego.

Another program, designed to train adult guards to deal with teens in custody, also was denied federal money even though it was ranked by the staff number 2 out of 104 in its category.

Well done, republicans!  *golf clap*

[McBa1n]

While I don't think it's a horrible idea to have a golf program for kids, does it make a lot of sense? Golf costs an asston just to play 1 day, let alone get a set of clubs + equipment. Sure, it's good to get kids off the streets, but how the crap are they going to affoard to go golfing outside the program? Our government should not be putting funding into this, however - it should be done via pure charity, as it always has been.

[denoginizer]

But...but...Tiger Woods is a minority and look what golf has done for him !!! 


BTW I pretty sure stupid Federal appropriations will be made when Obama wins too.

[Pyperkub]

But...but...Tiger Woods is a minority and look what golf has done for him !!! 


BTW I pretty sure stupid Federal appropriations will be made when Obama wins too.

This is true, however I believe the degree will be lessened due to the probabilty that they will be less brazen having been in control for a shorter time.  It took the Republican revolution years to get really corrupt.

[brettmcd]

But...but...Tiger Woods is a minority and look what golf has done for him !!! 


BTW I pretty sure stupid Federal appropriations will be made when Obama wins too.

Of course they will, its what government does no matter which party is in charge.   Its just too bad people like Brendan will never believe or admit to that.

[cheeba]

BTW I pretty sure stupid Federal appropriations will be made when Obama wins too.

Shhh, that kind of common sense has no place in Brendan's Republicans Are Pure Evil While Democrats Are Pure Good post #9201.

[Brendan]

BTW I pretty sure stupid Federal appropriations will be made when Obama wins too.

This isn't about appropriating money - it's about misappropriating money.  Surely, you can admit that Bush has thoroughly systematized the process of crony appointment - famously bad ones include Michael Brown and, well, anyone put in charge of federal environmental offices.

In this particular case, DOJ employees thought this was so egregious that a half-dozen different DOJ employees participated in revealing it.

And, of course, if Obama appoints incompetent people to federal positions who then launder federal resources towards pet projects, I certainly hope whistleblowers cry foul.  Think there's any chance this guy will be fired?  Or the money reclaimed?  Of course not.

It's hilarious that the conservatives here at GT who bleat on and on about gubmint taking all their money don't get up in arms about the wasting of millions and millions of dollars.  I guess that's because it doesn't square with their pre-existing beliefs.

[cheeba]

It's hilarious that the conservatives here at GT who bleat on and on about gubmint taking all their money don't get up in arms about the wasting of millions and millions of dollars.  I guess that's because it doesn't square with their pre-existing beliefs.

You obviously don't understand conservatives on a fundamental level, which isn't surprising given all that demonizing you're so apeshit about. We KNOW the feds misappropriate funds. We've seen it under every administration. That is why we want smaller government. As for getting all up in arms about it, you know the story about the scorpion and the turtle crossing the river?

[denoginizer]

This isn't about appropriating money - it's about misappropriating money.  Surely, you can admit that Bush has thoroughly systematized the process of crony appointment - famously bad ones include Michael Brown and, well, anyone put in charge of federal environmental offices.

No argument there.

And, of course, if Obama appoints incompetent people to federal positions who then launder federal resources towards pet projects, I certainly hope whistleblowers cry foul.  Think there's any chance this guy will be fired?  Or the money reclaimed?  Of course not.

I doubt it.  Although it the story makes if to the major media outlets it's possible that the the money may get reclaimed.  Or at least some of it.

It's hilarious that the conservatives here at GT who bleat on and on about gubmint taking all their money don't get up in arms about the wasting of millions and millions of dollars.  I guess that's because it doesn't square with their pre-existing beliefs.

I am not a conservative.  I am a moderate.  I work for the Treasury Dept myself and I have seen waste that you would not believe.  I don't think the culture in Government organizations has that much to do with who the President is.  Trust me there are congressmen on both sides of the aisle that waste shocking amounts of our money.  Your attitude seems to be, "Wow these Republican politicans are wasteful and corrupt."  My attitude is "Wow these politicians are wasteful and corrupt."

[Brendan]

I am not a conservative.  I am a moderate.  I work for the Treasury Dept myself and I have seen waste that you would not believe.  I don't think the culture in Government organizations has that much to do with who the President is.  Trust me there are congressmen on both sides of the aisle that waste shocking amounts of our money.  Your attitude seems to be, "Wow these Republican politicans are wasteful and corrupt."  My attitude is "Wow these politicians are wasteful and corrupt."

I wasn't addressing you with my "conservatives" comment. I'm aware that you're an independent. 

Yes, there will always be corrupt people in government.  I'm not a pollyanna who thinks that having a democrat in the white house will, by itself, eliminate fraud and waste.  What I want is to have a system in place that is reasonably transparent so that we citizens (and the media) can see these types of expenditures without requiring a CBO investigation.  Also important is a system that enforces some real consequences when corruption is discovered. 

The culture in the current administration is to avoid the acknowledgment of wrong-doing entirely - and, in fact, these sort of arrangements were actually condoned by the Bush white house because they were a way to shift taxpayer money to undeserving, but ideologically aligned, third parties.  This guy at the DOJ gave 1.1 million dollars to Bill Bennett's charity.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Well done, republicans!  *golf clap*

Since we are at it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits;_ylt=Av31RmLloA1bIMeoQM.Dg8Cs0NUE

Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.

Explain to me how this makes ANYONE happy?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Independents? 

[denoginizer]

Well done, republicans!  *golf clap*

Since we are at it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits;_ylt=Av31RmLloA1bIMeoQM.Dg8Cs0NUE

Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.

Explain to me how this makes ANYONE happy?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Independents? 

If they were taxed would it bring down gas prices?

[msteelers]

Well done, republicans!  *golf clap*

Since we are at it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits;_ylt=Av31RmLloA1bIMeoQM.Dg8Cs0NUE

Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.

Explain to me how this makes ANYONE happy?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Independents? 

The Republicans argued that the oil companies would compensate by charging us even more at the pump. Unless there is language in the bill that prevent this (doubtful), then it is likely to happen. Since when have the oil companies done anything to hurt their bottom line?

[Brendan]

The Republicans argued that the oil companies would compensate by charging us even more at the pump. Unless there is language in the bill that prevent this (doubtful), then it is likely to happen. Since when have the oil companies done anything to hurt their bottom line?

Here's the text of the bill.

It contains several provisions that purportedly would affect fuel prices - it would increase oversight of the futures market and create penalties for price gouging and market manipulation.  The windfall profits tax could be avoided if companies invested the money in new refineries or in alternative/renewable energy development.

[cheeba]

Explain to me how this makes ANYONE happy?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Independents? 

Because it keeps government the hell away from the market. I don't want the gov't deciding how much profit a company can make.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Explain to me how this makes ANYONE happy?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Independents? 

Because it keeps government the hell away from the market. I don't want the gov't deciding how much profit a company can make.

So you are defending the market?  Production is up.  Storage is up.  Consumption is down.  Prices are up.  The market is clearly broken - it breaks the simple rules of basic macroeconomics.  You don't want protection from predators like the oil companies? 

[McBa1n]

The thing about the Big Oil giveaways and them saying 'you'll pay for it at the pump' if you tax us... They also say that the market price of oil dictates what you pay at the pump. So... Which is it? With competition all over the world for oil, taxing certain oil companies and taking away their hand outs isn't going to make the price go up. Those companies still have to compete with other oil - you think they are going to charge 20 cents more than a competitor for a gallon? Fundamentally, they're wrong.

Also, while I'm really really against regulation - there are rules to protect against monopoly. The world runs on oil, that seems like a monopoly to me. If there's one place things need some major cleaning up and fixing with the dramatic corporitization of our nation - it starts there. It's the foundation of all other business.

[Moliere]

Explain to me how this makes ANYONE happy?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Independents? 

Because it keeps government the hell away from the market. I don't want the gov't deciding how much profit a company can make.

So you are defending the market?  Production is up.  Storage is up.  Consumption is down.  Prices are up.  The market is clearly broken - it breaks the simple rules of basic macroeconomics.  You don't want protection from predators like the oil companies? 

Its a little more complicated than basic macroeconomics.

The last time the United States imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies was in 1980 and it lasted until 1988. The result, according to a 1990 Congressional Research Service analysis, was that the tax on oil company profits decreased domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent and increased dependence on foreign oil by 8 percent to 16 percent. Keep in mind that the big private oil companies actually control only about 6 percent of the world's known oil reserves—the rest are owned by gigantic foreign national oil companies. And just where do private oil companies get the billions they invest in projects to increase supplies? That's right; their profits. In other words, Clinton actually ends up sticking it to consumers when she tries to stick it to Big Oil.

[Brendan]

Again, the bill exempted companies who directed the portion of profits subject to the tax into R&D for renewable/alternative energy and refinery production.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Actually you are wrong on this one Moliere.  It is as simple as black and white, right and wrong.

If I have 100 dollars in my hand after I've paid all of my bills and you have 20 dollars in your hand after you pay all of your bills, what right do I have to ask "Hey, can I have half of your money please?  I don't have any justifiable reason other than my empty promise to maybe possibly in the future look into ways that might possibly maybe make you only have to pay me 8 dollars next time instead of 10." 

I'd like to see any level of justification for paying additional money to a company that already makes more than every other company on the planet.  How about taking that additional money and paying it to a third party to come up with alternatives?  Asking Oil companies to come up with alternatives is a lot like asking Amtrak to move all of their rails 3 feet to the left - there is no profit in it and it doesn't serve their interests.

[Moliere]

How about taking that additional money and paying it to a third party to come up with alternatives?  Asking Oil companies to come up with alternatives is a lot like asking Amtrak to move all of their rails 3 feet to the left - there is no profit in it and it doesn't serve their interests.

You're a businessman. How would you feel if someone decided that you're making too much money and therefore it should be taken from you with the explicit purpose of funding your competitors? Who gets to draw that magic line between "acceptable" profits and "windfall" profits?

[denoginizer]

Microsoft and Google have immense profits.  Should we tax them too?

I'm still trying to figure out how imposing additional taxes on oil companies with reduce gas prices for the average consumer.  It seems to me gas prices would increase.

[Brendan]

I'm still trying to figure out how imposing additional taxes on oil companies with reduce gas prices. 

The gas price reductions would come through the other portions of the act that punish price gouging, reduce speculation in the futures market, and address price-fixing by OPEC.

Microsoft is not free to charge whatever we want for our products, by the way.  There's the ever-present risk that we'll be charged with "bundling" for adding features to the operating system.

[Knightshade Dragon]

I'm still trying to figure out how imposing additional taxes on oil companies with reduce gas prices. 

The gas price reductions would come through the other portions of the act that punish price gouging, reduce speculation in the futures market, and address price-fixing by OPEC.

Microsoft is not free to charge whatever we want for our products, by the way.  There's the ever-present risk that we'll be charged with "bundling" for adding features to the operating system.

What he said. 

As far as me charging whatever I want, there are alternatives to what I do.  There is currently no alternative to oil.  Besides the pie-in-the-sky bullshit of riding a bike, walking, etc. there are many things that require OIL.  The plastic keyboard I'm using, the plastic mouse, the plastic shell of my Dell PC, the plastic surrounding the new iPhone, the oil makeup of the new asphalt outside, the oil needed to run our military fleet (turns out they aren't keen on the whole 'solar powered aircraft carrier' idea), etc. etc.   

Simply put, if we don't regulate this and get it under control, people are going to start getting hurt.  Desperation is a stinky cologne, but our oil dependent country is wearing it like a cheap shower.  Meanwhile, we are essentially paying a welfare check to companies that make BILLIONS of dollars.  Again, justify cutting a check to a company that already have money of their own. 

[Geezer]

I'm still trying to figure out how imposing additional taxes on oil companies with reduce gas prices. 

The gas price reductions would come through the other portions of the act that punish price gouging, reduce speculation in the futures market, and address price-fixing by OPEC.

Microsoft is not free to charge whatever we want for our products, by the way.  There's the ever-present risk that we'll be charged with "bundling" for adding features to the operating system.

What he said. 

As far as me charging whatever I want, there are alternatives to what I do.  There is currently no alternative to oil.  Besides the pie-in-the-sky bullshit of riding a bike, walking, etc. there are many things that require OIL.  The plastic keyboard I'm using, the plastic mouse, the plastic shell of my Dell PC, the plastic surrounding the new iPhone, the oil makeup of the new asphalt outside, the oil needed to run our military fleet (turns out they aren't keen on the whole 'solar powered aircraft carrier' idea), etc. etc.   

Simply put, if we don't regulate this and get it under control, people are going to start getting hurt.  Desperation is a stinky cologne, but our oil dependent country is wearing it like a cheap shower.  Meanwhile, we are essentially paying a welfare check to companies that make BILLIONS of dollars.  Again, justify cutting a check to a company that already have money of their own. 

I agree here.  The free market thing only works when there is a competitive free market in effect.  Unfortunately, oil is something that American consumers specifically and the world generally needs.  Much like other basic needs (water, food etc.) oil can't be said t be operating in a pure supply/demand environment when there is no true consumer choice.

Another point one might make is that if one wants to argue that oil companies need to operate in a free market and avoid burdensome regulation and windfall taxes, that has to cut both ways - they also can't go running to the government for subsidies and breaks on taxes, or protectionist legislation. 

[Purge]

It would seem to me that by forcing your oil companies to aide in finding independance to oil means that even if you're not saving 10cents on the litre (~35cents per gallon), the fact that you are now moving away from the dependance means you have, in a long term sense, set yourself up for saving money.

It's not like plastic is going anywhere, so as far as they are concerned we are nowhere near pushing them out of the market.

One other thing: the fact that collusion exists in the fuel marketplace (not overt, but look at how "stiff" competition is in a market clamoring for savings :roll:), regulation helps deal with price gouging.

There are rules for capitolist marketplaces, it is in everyone's best interests that critical goods and services are regulated to follow them.

[denoginizer]

From the Findings section of the Bill.

(7) the record prices for crude oil and products refined from crude oil (including gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel)--

      (A) are hurting millions of consumers, workers, small businesses, and large businesses of the United States, and threaten long-term damage to the economy and security of the United States;

are partially due to--

      (i) the declining value of the dollar and a widespread lack of confidence in the management of economic and foreign policy by the President;

      (ii) the accumulation of national debt and growing budget deficits under the failed economic policies of the President; and

      (iii) high levels of military expenditures under the failed policies of the President in Iraq; and...

Sounds like a non-partisan bill that reaches across the aisle to me.   

It's clear that the Democrats never expected to pass this bill.  There is no way President Bush would sign a bill containing that language.  This looks like a publicity stunt to me.

[Brendan]

From the Findings section of the Bill.

(7) the record prices for crude oil and products refined from crude oil (including gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel)--

      (A) are hurting millions of consumers, workers, small businesses, and large businesses of the United States, and threaten long-term damage to the economy and security of the United States;

are partially due to--

      (i) the declining value of the dollar and a widespread lack of confidence in the management of economic and foreign policy by the President;

      (ii) the accumulation of national debt and growing budget deficits under the failed economic policies of the President; and

      (iii) high levels of military expenditures under the failed policies of the President in Iraq; and...

Sounds like a non-partisan bill that reaches across the aisle to me.   

It's clear that the Democrats never expected to pass this bill.  There is no way President Bush would sign a bill containing that language.  This looks like a publicity stunt to me.

You must not read many bills - they're frequently loaded with that sort of shit.  Even if they omitted the criticisms, the bill was going to get vetoed because the president wants to protect big oil.  The bill wasn't a publicity stunt.  It shows voters where the priorities of the two parties are.

[denoginizer]

You must not read many bills -

   
You got me there.

The bill wasn't a publicity stunt.  It shows voters where the priorities of the two parties are.

To me it looks like the Democrats want to inject a protest of the war in Iraq into discussions about Big Oil. 

[davidf]

I'm sorry but I completly agree with Brendan here! I really lke the idea of small goverment, but we've been repeataddy shown how people abuse consumers and the public without basic oversight.

If we had
A. transparent goverment
B. clear ownership of decions and policy, i.e. your name is stamped on ever decision you approve, so you can have a clear line of accounability
C. eliminate private contributions and lobbys. Force the special interest to make their case to the voting public...sure the general public can be stupid some times, but at least then its us accounatble and eliminate these brockered back room deals. I'll admit some new check would need to be put in place, and that the exsting process has kept out some potentially dangerous people out of sight that I would otherwise be terrifed that the general public might actually elect.

I am not a conservative.  I am a moderate.  I work for the Treasury Dept myself and I have seen waste that you would not believe.  I don't think the culture in Government organizations has that much to do with who the President is.  Trust me there are congressmen on both sides of the aisle that waste shocking amounts of our money.  Your attitude seems to be, "Wow these Republican politicans are wasteful and corrupt."  My attitude is "Wow these politicians are wasteful and corrupt."

I wasn't addressing you with my "conservatives" comment. I'm aware that you're an independent. 

Yes, there will always be corrupt people in government.  I'm not a pollyanna who thinks that having a democrat in the white house will, by itself, eliminate fraud and waste.  What I want is to have a system in place that is reasonably transparent so that we citizens (and the media) can see these types of expenditures without requiring a CBO investigation.  Also important is a system that enforces some real consequences when corruption is discovered. 

The culture in the current administration is to avoid the acknowledgment of wrong-doing entirely - and, in fact, these sort of arrangements were actually condoned by the Bush white house because they were a way to shift taxpayer money to undeserving, but ideologically aligned, third parties.  This guy at the DOJ gave 1.1 million dollars to Bill Bennett's charity.

[denoginizer]

I'm sorry but I completly agree with Brendan here! I really lke the idea of small goverment, but we've been repeataddy shown how people abuse consumers and the public without basic oversight.

If we had
A. transparent goverment
B. clear ownership of decions and policy, i.e. your name is stamped on ever decision you approve, so you can have a clear line of accounability
C. eliminate private contributions and lobbys. Force the special interest to make their case to the voting public...

Who wouldn't completely agree with that?
I'd like to have a car that runs on water and holodeck in my basement too while you are at it..  Unfortunately none of that is ever going to happen.  It's nice to dream though.  Isn't it? 

[davidf]

The problem with finite resources, is that regulations that don't apply to everyone! and this can be exploited by other goverments to weaken another. For instance, if a consortem wanted to weaken a country with such regulation it would be easy. Simply rise the price so high, so that the goverment in question is forced to rely on internal reserves. Thus forcing them at some point to become completly reliant on you. No ones said it, but price regulation of oil in the US right now could allow that exploit from foreign interests, and keeping step with global prices while seeming slimey is protectiong us from being expoited (though I think the right thing to do would be to invest nearly all of this windfall in renewable energy research so we can shed our reliance on finite resources). Frankly if your economy relies on a finte resource, and your not coming up with a real plan to mitigate that reliance...your painting yourself into a corner.

It would seem to me that by forcing your oil companies to aide in finding independance to oil means that even if you're not saving 10cents on the litre (~35cents per gallon), the fact that you are now moving away from the dependance means you have, in a long term sense, set yourself up for saving money.

It's not like plastic is going anywhere, so as far as they are concerned we are nowhere near pushing them out of the market.

One other thing: the fact that collusion exists in the fuel marketplace (not overt, but look at how "stiff" competition is in a market clamoring for savings :roll:), regulation helps deal with price gouging.

There are rules for capitolist marketplaces, it is in everyone's best interests that critical goods and services are regulated to follow them.

[Eightball]

address price-fixing by OPEC.

This always makes me laugh.  The idea of bringing antitrust suits against OPEC is ridiculous.  We'd bring a suit, and what possible way of enforcement would we have?  OPEC would just laugh at us.

They hold most of the cards; if we censure them for antitrust, they can simply just sell their gas elsewhere.  While they like having our money...we need their oil.  They have the leverage.

[Brendan]

I'm sorry but I completly agree with Brendan here! I really lke the idea of small goverment, but we've been repeataddy shown how people abuse consumers and the public without basic oversight.

If we had
A. transparent goverment
B. clear ownership of decions and policy, i.e. your name is stamped on ever decision you approve, so you can have a clear line of accounability
C. eliminate private contributions and lobbys. Force the special interest to make their case to the voting public...

Who wouldn't completely agree with that?
I'd like to have a car that runs on water and holodeck in my basement too while you are at it..  Unfortunately none of that is ever going to happen.  It's nice to dream though.  Isn't it? 

It'll happen much sooner than your holodeck.  S. 3077, sponsored principally by one B. Hussein Obama, cryptomuslimfascist, addresses some of the problem by providing us citizens an opportunity to look at where all the money goes.  He doesn't take PAC/lobbyist money in his campaign, and now that he's in charge of the DNC, they don't either.  That's a lot better than McCain who employees dozens of lobbyists in his campaign, including his main man Charlie Black, lobbyist for numerous and notable human rights violators around the world.

[Brendan]

address price-fixing by OPEC.

This always makes me laugh.  The idea of bringing antitrust suits against OPEC is ridiculous.  We'd bring a suit, and what possible way of enforcement would we have?  OPEC would just laugh at us.

They hold most of the cards; if we censure them for antitrust, they can simply just sell their gas elsewhere.  While they like having our money...we need their oil.  They have the leverage.

Well, were I inclined towards the right-wing side of the aisle, I'd argue for enforcement by tactical warhead.  Or perhaps by invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to christianity.

But yeah, do I think the AG is going to bring price collusion charges against Saudi Arabia?  Seems unlikely.  I would still like to empower the AG to do so, however.

[davidf]

The diffirence is your example is not currently feasible, functional or realistic!
What i defined is feasible, functionaly or realistic! It would just take a supreme amount of effort and time from possibly every reasonable thinking citizen of our great nation to dislodge the currently complacent and corruptable elements of our political system.  What did JFK say on this.. "not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win"

I want to live in that world, I'm suprised you don't!

I'm sorry but I completly agree with Brendan here! I really lke the idea of small goverment, but we've been repeataddy shown how people abuse consumers and the public without basic oversight.

If we had
A. transparent goverment
B. clear ownership of decions and policy, i.e. your name is stamped on ever decision you approve, so you can have a clear line of accounability
C. eliminate private contributions and lobbys. Force the special interest to make their case to the voting public...

Who wouldn't completely agree with that?
I'd like to have a car that runs on water and holodeck in my basement too while you are at it..  Unfortunately none of that is ever going to happen.  It's nice to dream though.  Isn't it? 

[Knightshade Dragon]

B. Hussein Obama, cryptomuslimfascist

I'm assuming sarcasm here?

As folks have said prior - the sword has to cut both ways.  What is scary is that if we continue down this path we are going to end up going all 'Lord of the Flies' over the last few scraps of oil.  Nothing but disaster in that path.

[Brendan]

B. Hussein Obama, cryptomuslimfascist

I'm assuming sarcasm here?

Yeah - you guys keep denying my request for the [snark] tag.   

[Geezer]

address price-fixing by OPEC.

This always makes me laugh.  The idea of bringing antitrust suits against OPEC is ridiculous.  We'd bring a suit, and what possible way of enforcement would we have?  OPEC would just laugh at us.

They hold most of the cards; if we censure them for antitrust, they can simply just sell their gas elsewhere.  While they like having our money...we need their oil.  They have the leverage.

Well, were I inclined towards the right-wing side of the aisle, I'd argue for enforcement by tactical warhead.  Or perhaps by invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to christianity.

But yeah, do I think the AG is going to bring price collusion charges against Saudi Arabia?  Seems unlikely.  I would still like to empower the AG to do so, however.

To what end, and for what purpose?

[brettmcd]

address price-fixing by OPEC.

This always makes me laugh.  The idea of bringing antitrust suits against OPEC is ridiculous.  We'd bring a suit, and what possible way of enforcement would we have?  OPEC would just laugh at us.

They hold most of the cards; if we censure them for antitrust, they can simply just sell their gas elsewhere.  While they like having our money...we need their oil.  They have the leverage.

Well, were I inclined towards the right-wing side of the aisle, I'd argue for enforcement by tactical warhead.  Or perhaps by invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to christianity.

But yeah, do I think the AG is going to bring price collusion charges against Saudi Arabia?  Seems unlikely.  I would still like to empower the AG to do so, however.

To what end, and for what purpose?

So he could have a feel good but worthless political gesture for his party to run on of course.   That it would do absolutely nothing to affect oil prices doesnt mean a thing.