We have the US strike maps, and the school was actually one of the targets on the map.

#4 | Posted by Corky

Time to pull out the Sharpie!

Why is US oil not first used in the US and the 'extra' sold on the world market?

#33 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

Becuase we have a free market economy. Oil gets sold to the highest bidder, so if another country is willing to pay more for it, it will get sold to them, driving the price up locally.

The US is now a net exporter of oil. Though I am not sure we have the cross country infrastructure to actually transport all of the oil we have from the places it is produced to the places where it is needed.

The way to actually reduce the price in the way you are suggesting is to restrict or ban exports. You force an increase of supply in the US, driving down prices.

But, if you do allow the 'extra' to be sold on the world market, how do you choose? Which oil companies get screwed over selling on the local market with depressed prices, and how do you choose which ones are the 'winners' which get to reap the high profits the non-fascist/non-goverment controlled prices on the international market?

I guess the other thing he could do would be to put a high export tariff on oil. That should also force more oil supply to stay local, as well fixing the problem of picking winners and losers. The only winner would be the US government.

What can they possibly do to reduce gas prices?
other than to reduce their own cut from a gallon of gas....what else can the government do to lower gas prices?
#28 | Posted by eberly

Release from the strategic reserve.

Not advocating for that. Strategic reserves are currently at a historically low level, so it would probably actually be a bad idea. Just listing options.

So, another idea that does nothing except to stick it to middle class folks leaving the uber wealthy untouched.

#9 | Posted by eberly

What do you consider to be middle class?

The wage cap is currently $184k. I feel that if you are making $184k then you are probably up past middle class, at least upper middle class.

Though I do agree with you if you are pointing out that most of the wealthy have their income in capital gains. I would be completely in favor of expanding Social Security to include ALL income.

Relatedly, I would also be in favor of treating all income the same. So that there is no special "capital gains" rate, and all income, regardless of source, is taxed under the same progressive rates.

Does anyone here remember the conservative outrage and meltdown when NYC tried to tax large sodas? That was just a tax at the local level, not a prohibition or regulation of it.

Now the is a Conservative in the White House and you have RFK trying to regulate it at the national level and... crickets.

#6 | Posted by eberly

True. That was my first throught. Income taxes at the lower end are kinda negligible compared to payroll taxes.

You have no concept of what's transpiring.
You think it's localized to the middle east.
Moron

#13 | Posted by oneironaut

Of course it is not localized to the middle east. It is localized to the Epstein files.

And my other option was Kamala Harris. Enough said.

#16 | Posted by BellRinger

Did Republicans not have a primary?

I wonder if any Republicans are even aware that this shows blatant disregard for Constitutional Separation of Powers.

#3 | Posted by snoofy

The justice department is part of the executive branch, so there are no constitutional powers that are supposed to be separate.

Rather, Republicans have undone all of the norms and reforms established after Nixon and the Watergate scandal.