Shared publicly  - 
Stop Excessive Oil Speculation:
A group of senators Wednesday introduced a bill to make federal regulators invoke emergency powers to rein in speculators responsible for rapidly-rising gasoline prices. The legislation would set a 14-day deadline for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement rules to stop excessive speculation by Wall Street traders in oil futures markets. The bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is cosponsored by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).
March 21, 2012. A group of senators today introduced a bill to make federal regulators invoke emergency powers to rein in speculators responsible for rapidly-rising gasoline prices. The legislation wo...
Ronald Leroy's profile photoDavid LaCivita's profile photoSteve Paul's profile photoPat Gunn's profile photo
It's interesting that all of the co-sponsors are Democrats when the Republican candidates are the ones blaming Obama for high gas prices. Unfortunately, the same speculative, get rich quick market schemes that led to the housing/mortgage fiasco is at work here forcing the higher oil prices. I don't know if there is an easy way to fix short term greed. Also, too bad the markets are so anxiety driven as well. Good job +Bernie Sanders .
+Christopher Benjamin It is also the GOP candidates that are beating the drums of war with Iran which is a major driver for increased oil prices.

There is an easy fix, put a per transaction fee of 1%.
But +David Whitlock isn't that 1% transaction fee considered a tax ? Oooh ! We can't have that now ! You are right about the drums of war. Good points.
+Sylvain G the USD has stood up very well actually. When you see oil rise without supply or demand changing this is due to speculation. I am not as familiar with food speculation but if it exists it should not be allowed either. You should not be able to buy without taking possession. This is cruel to the poor and terrible for everyone but big oil and wall street.
I also think, we should roll back gasoline taxes to what they would be if gas was $3.00 a gallon.
Why should the government receive additional taxes just because the price of gas increased from $3.00 to $5.00 a gallon?
What do they propose to do with speculators that are not on Wall Street? ie other countries
+Dan Noble I would hope that there would be some international support following us but obviously doing what we can will make a difference.

+Peter Passanisi Good point. I am sure that would get both parties support as well.
+Christopher Benjamin and +David Whitlock I'm with you both. The cost of financial transactions today is so low that it encourages very short term investments adding to the volatility of the commodity and financial markets. Back in the day when it cost me $75 and 1.5% to trade a stock I certainly held positions much longer. Brokers were happy back then. 1% fee or a high super short term tax rate would be helpful to stabilize the market..
Where are the Republicans on this?
If we went to a costume party as batman and robin i would let you go as batman
+s.bradford colson There are many ways to structure markets and finances; again, that so for we have permitted them in various forms doesn't mean we must, and there are plenty of ways we could consider regulating them.
+s.bradford colson Hmm. You might be significantly right on this (although I would like to substantially take futures and other things out of "high finance").
They won't be satisfied till they've crashed the whole system with a plethera of colledge pukes validating their existance with useless redundant acts of stupidity.
Gas/oil prices are only high because of the weak dollar. If you really want cheaper gas then tell Bernie to help Ron Paul end the Federal Reserve's attack on the dollar. Btw, oil prices are near an all time low when night with good or silver, Google it.
+David LaCivita Ron Paul (or any other Libertarian) is a recipe for disaster in America.
Oh, god, another Ron Paul crazy. Go back to your cave, I've already seen the sun.
These Dems are economically illiterate. This is one way to curb sharp changes in US demand (speculating futures); however, they forgot that there is a worldwide demand for oil. Dumbasses. Nothing more than a campaign feather in their cap. No real solution to the other part of the equation which determines price, supply.
+Dustin Poplin AFAIK, we are actually seeing increased drilling and oil exports now.
+Pat Gunn If by disaster you mean living with out the Federal Gov't ruining your life than I agree.
+Kelley May You may have seen the sun but you missed the light. Your silly personal attacks only weaken you.
If +Bernie Sanders wants to lower prices he needs to save the dollar, speculators need to go too but they are only a small part of the problem. The Federal Reserve is the single biggest threat to the American way of life
+Pat Gunn an insignificant "increase" to world supply is, well, insignificant. Uneducated people hear that shit and actually think our energy policy is improving.
+Dustin Poplin Our energy policy will only significantly improve when we use better technologies to increase efficiency and otherwise use less energy. Petrol prices are a short-term concern, not a long-term one.

+David LaCivita The Federal Government doesn't ruin my life. It's in fact a very good entity, overall. Libertarianism has nothing substantial to offer American politics except a path for people who don't see the picture to offer as a road to ruin.
+David Whitlock We're all reasonably lucky to live in a developed country with an effective government, yes. Imperfect and in need of improvement? Of course. But we know we're better off with it than without it, by far.
+Pat Gunn: That's cool. Which country are you from? I'm in the US, and I'd love to see our government become more effective - at least at making things better instead of worse.
The report says that speculation has increased the price of oil by 15%. People who use oil and oil products would be very happy to pay a 1% tax per transaction if that lowered the price by 15%. That is a net reduction of 14%. Who wouldn't happily pay 14% less for something?

True hedgers would be happy to pay a 1% fee if it lowered the price by 15%.
+Coyote Osborne I'm from the United States, although in general in the western world, government is an imperfect-but-pretty-decent tool for good. There are a few insane libertarians who hate civilisation because they might have to pay taxes or because they don't manage to get that imperfect systems are better than no systems, but most of us recognise that government is generally a good thing, that it makes our lives more decent, our society less harsh to the disadvantaged, and that at least to a certain extent, it's a reflection of us. We will always be trying to find ways to improve it, but that's the sign of a great tool, not a poor one.
Then you don't understand what it means to be a Libertarian, we aren't Anarchists. We want a Federal Government that follows the limits set out by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) and leave the rest to the states (10th Amendment). It seems everyone forgets about states' rights and state governments.
+David LaCivita Libertarians who claim to want to follow the Constitution but who severely misunderstand it are a dime a dozen. The centuries since our country's founding are a smooth evolution of government, just as all common-law governments see. Nothing unconstitutional, and not a lot to be ashamed of on whole. Just societal progress, which you're keen to reverse, to restore an ugly past that never was.
+Pat Gunn Perhaps they are a dime a dozen but I am not one of them thank you. I'm no Harvard Law grad but I have read it a time or 2.
+David Whitlock Libertarians who ignore or deny science are idiots. The short answer is the 10th Amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words if the power isn't given to Congress in Article 1 then it is a States issue. One of the great things about this HUGE country is the difference in the states and for environmentalists we have California.
The other piece is the Dept of the Interior, charged with managing the territorial US and its resources (air, water, etc).
Libertarians say we have a right to clean air, water and private companies don't own the environments they are polluting. Most waterways are owned my municipalities or states and should be protected by them. Other areas fall under the Dept of the Interior.
The founders of this country didn't want a giant, all-powerful central government because they knew such a thing would be completely unaccountable and here we are with exactly that. Imagine if the states had the power that the Federal Government has taken from them.
Sorry, I'm getting tired and running on...
State governments are far more accountable to their constituents and states are pretty easy to leave if you don't like yours. I don't approve of everything the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does but the on thing they don't do is waste too much of my money.
Sorry, I am out of steam. I hope that helps.
+David LaCivita All these "we have a right to clean air..." are fangless when you undermine the ability of government to actually do anything about it; the whole "private lawsuits will suffice" argument is rubbish (and needing to defend that line in a debate is what initially broke me away from libertarianism, ages ago).

The founders of the country were not of one mind, either on the size of government or its form. The Democratic-Republicans wanted one thing, the Federalists wanted another. Both of them had to deal with the fact that our first government (under the articles of confederation) was an utter failure because it was too decentralised. Our second go, under the constitution, was much more centralised and much more successful. And, like most governments, it has continued to evolve with time, mostly for the better.

Turning back the clock would be a terrible mistake.
I think what you are saying is that Libertarianism is good in theory but is lacking in real world application? I would agree and follow that with so is Liberalism, Socialism, etc.
But I did go on to say the states and the federal government both have a role in protecting the air, water, etc. So I don't see how it is fangless. Oh, wait, it is fangless because our "for the better" enormous centralized government is completely corrupt.
+David LaCivita No, I am saying that Libertarianism is bad in theory and worse in practice. Attempting to tie it to the founders gets the history wrong.
Thanks Senator +Bernie Sanders :-)
Excuse my request, but please demand Transparency & also Fusion or Thorium Energy Generators running within 2 years.
Plus we're increasing our energy needs building new trains!
Thank you & I hope you have a good day :-)
+Steve Paul That won't happen. The technology to do that does not exist yet.
+Pat Gunn thanks, but the availability has suffered shocking censorship & suppression.
Both are available, since before last year, seemingly (difficult to be sure of these facts behind such world class best ever experienced overfinanced censorship & suppression).
Sorry I can't easily give you all conclusive evidence that I'd like, but I can come close, even my page's reposts can, amateur that I am.
Please know either are available, proven true, demonstrated, far beyond theory.
We mostly just need to demand it.
Please demand Fusion, or in the event of delay to newer Fusion, Thorium :-)
+Steve Paul Nope. You're a conspiracy nut. If they were available, some countries would have them. There is not a global conspiracy over all the nations of the world despite massive political differences, from North Korea to China to Kenya to Azerbaijan to Canada, to avoid better, cleaner, cheaper power technologies.

You're selling snake oil.
+Pat Gunn or all, I suffer margin for error under suppression & more, but it seems at least China, Canada & Norway have begun 
+Steve Paul There is research underway for some of the technologies you mention. None are ready yet.
+Pat Gunn or all, please don't underestimate the global powers of the dirty fuel power dictators & their minions, plus we lazy, apathetic, unquestioning, etc.
+Steve Paul I don't. But I understand the state of science as it is right now, and conspiracy theories are almost always wrong.
+Pat Gunn or all, conspiracy is so common it's even required attempts at protective regulation, such as Congress person's insider trading, our computer passwords, etc.
+Steve Paul Conspiracy is actually fairly rare, as much as nutjob entertainers like Alex Jones might like people to believe otherwise.
+Pat Gunn or any, conspiracy is more common than extramarital affairs & criminal gangs :-)
+Steve Paul Either you have a weird definition for conspiracy, or you're not particuarly acquainted with reality. Possibly both.
Add a comment...