McCain: The Government buys your gas.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TheAnswer, Sep 26, 2008.

  1. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #1
    Who knows if its a sign of McCain's out-of-touch ignorance or his affinity for wandering off topic during the debate, but apparently when asked how he was going to curb government spending, he suggested that the government stop spending money on importing foreign oil. :eek:

    An in-depth analysis of McCain's earlier comment can be found here, where the source of McCain's $700 billion figure is tracked to his hind regions.

    I don't know whether I should be more disturbed that the figure is fictional, or that McCain thinks that our oil imports are government spending?
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    This is one of those teapot tempests that doesn't mean squat. For one thing, the money amount will vary with the price of oil. What price? $140/bbl? $90/bbl? The "when it was said" and the price at the time somebody ran the numbers will affect such stuff.

    Another problem with this sort of stuff is that folks will look at one month's amount--be it price or number of barrels--and extend it to a year. That can easily skew things, as well.

    SumDood gets fed numbers by somebody who supposedly knows what he's talking about, and repeats what he's been told. You do it, I do it; McCain does it, Obama does it.

    The best any of us can hope for is that the numbers are in the ballpark, and not wrong by an order of magnitude. The difference between 536 and 700 is a helluva lot less than messing up a decimal point, say between 536 and 53.6...

    Seems to me the bottom line is that we import some 60-ish% of our oil, and a bunch comes from OPEC folks. Last I heard, not all OPECkers are our bosom buddies. Anyhow, go to IEA for average import numbers, check the daily spot price, and get a temporary "money sent overseas" number. It's gonna be different, tomorrow or next week.

    'Rat
     
  3. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #3
    I believe the OP was saying the US government spends the 700 billion on oil whens it's actually the people that spend it. So his statement had nothing to do with a way to cut U.S. spending.
     
  4. TheAnswer thread starter macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #4
    McCain sighted the $700 billion as a way to cut government spending. Since the American people buy our gasoline ourselves (I don't know, maybe McCain fuels his 13 cars with government money), reducing our dependance on foreign oil doesn't reduce government spending.

    So, even if the $700 billion was correct, it doesn't effect the government's balance sheet.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    Well, here again, unless you hear an entire conversation in order to understand the full context, excerpts can be misleading. I dunno. Ya gotta talk to the newsies, but when it's a complex subject it's all too easy to mis-state or think one thing and say another. Been there, done that.

    You really want fun? Give expert testimony in civil court where nobody there knows anything about the subject, and you gotta deal with a hostile attorney's dumb questions. Ya gotta re-phrase and re-phrase, all the while trying to remember how you started. PITA. (My deal was over a "good used Audi" back when there was no such thing as a good used Audi; an early 1970s model. I had to explain the metallurgy factor of Audi's lousy cast iron, and why you had to change oil and filter.)

    It's super-easy to "get your tongue wrapped around your eye tooth and not see what you're saying."

    So I don't care who from which party says what on this sort of stuff. It doesn't mean anything. Now, that said, if somebody is erroneous on commonly known numbers and is confused when reading from a prepared statement about issues, that's something else again.

    'Rat
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    so the whole debate is pointless???
     
  7. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #7
    'Rat, I agree with you about 90% of the time on this board, but I really think you're being an apologist on this issue. McCain, the Republican (traditionally small government) presidential nominee, doesn't even know what government spending he would cut. If he actually cared about cutting government spending, you think he would have some programs in mind that should get the axe so that he wouldn't even need to try to give an off the cuff response that had the potential (and did) of backfiring due to complete inaccuracy...
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    Let's just leave it that I don't have a lot of use for McCain. And the trouble in modern America is that we've gotten so addicted to the Big Nanny money-teat that any call for cutting anything is greeted with howls of anguish from some group.

    Hey, we've gone from a $1.1 trillion budget left by Reagan to triple that to be left by Dubya. I think that's a rate of increase of public-trough goodies that's just a wee tad above the inflation rate, you should pardon my sarcasm.

    I guess that maybe the problem for ol' Mac is that he can't figure out what's "SAFE" to talk about cutting. Him, or anybody else besides Ron Paul. :D

    'Rat
     

Share This Page