thehill.com — “Only in politics do people greet bad news so enthusiastically,” President Obama said before a crowd of enthusiastic students.
“You pay more and they’re licking their chops? And you can bet since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans. I’ll save you the suspense: step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We heard the same thing in 2007. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years."
Feb 23, 2012 View in Crawl 4
blacklabelpaulFeb 24, 2012
Debating this issue in the scope of Dems Vs Repubs is just futile. OPEC, by proper definition, is a cartel - most of these nations have anti-us sentiments. Arguing who in the United States is to blame will go nowhere. If you want cheaper gas prices - work together to develop an energy resource that will distance us from having to do business with an unethical organization in the first place.
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
Amen
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
Opec is indeed a cartel, Paul has been telling you that for years.
blacklabelpaulFeb 25, 2012
Not sure if you mean Paul as 'Ron Paul' but nonetheless...the issue is much bigger than that. This country was beaten down in the 30s, went through war in the 40s, and flourish throughout the 50s. It repeated this (similarly, not the same) in the 70s, 80s, and 90s - each time keeping a dominant edge in the scientific community. Trying to safely stray away from the cartel is so much bigger than petty politics - saying one guy is right, and the other is wrong will go nowhere. I'm not saying there is an easy answer to all of this - but I think the first step is to stop trying to fix this problem with beliefs and start to fix it with IDEAS.
bwiiiFeb 25, 2012
"...work together to develop an energy resource that will distance us from having to do business with an unethical organization in the first place."
Your suggestion is apropos, both when dealing with oil producers and labor unions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blacklabelpaulFeb 26, 2012
I believe, as how most problems can be solved, a financially synergistic solution should be evaluated. Government has to earn a buck and a gold star from it (as much as most of us want to say no they shouldn't...be realistic.), companies have to earn a buck from it, it has to put people to work, and return the US as a major competitor in the global market for science, education, and - for the lack of a better term...general awesomeness. To put it shortly - we need to find our modern day hoover dam. Government earns money, companies earn money, workers earn money, and we have a visualized staple of what we, as Americans, are capable of to demonstrate to the entire world. A As long as everyone profits...from oil producers, to the trade unions, to Mr. and Mrs. John Q Taxpayer...everyone is happy.
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
The only thing I disagree with is "American's aren't stupid."
About half the American people are as dumb as a box of hair.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
sure explains hope and change
roguegeniusFeb 24, 2012
Thank you blueballs. I was hoping someone would present an example of what I"m talking about.
I figured it would be Kasha, though. But you are good enough.
markglFeb 24, 2012
It's bluto36. LOL. Roguegenius can't even read.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
His genius rarely shows through.
alecsputnikFeb 25, 2012
For someone laughing out loud you sure didn't get that joke.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
Yes, it does.
wulfgar3dFeb 25, 2012
And no mention of the #1 reason that gas prices as well as most everything else is going up in terms of dollars. The government is being funded by the FED printing dollars.
End the FED!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtnxfreeriderFeb 25, 2012
hat and a piece I found conflicting:
"The federal Energy Information Administration said last month that domestic oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. That number is expected to increase to 6.7 million barrels per day in 2020, the highest level since 1994. "
In 1994, gas prices were hella low... so reaching where we were in 1994 in 2020 still sounds low and unimpressive with the increased demand we have now.. we need more of an effort.. we also need oil refineries to work with the crude oil domestically.
Also, it seems a more realistic expression is "americans are dumb" it seems ~60+% have no idea whats going and that isnt a republican/democrat comment.. these people know nothing.
deomo899Feb 25, 2012
I am American and this is how I feel as well. Most Americans aren't the brightest bulbs in the box.
ike5266Feb 25, 2012
"Most Americans aren't the brightest bulbs in the box."
That explains the existence of the Democrat Party and the disaster known as President Barack Obama in a nutshell.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
martoqFeb 25, 2012
So you would prefer a one party system? Sounds like fun. I suppose it wouldn't matter what party opposed republicans, they would always be a "disaster".
gimiesomeFeb 25, 2012
That's USA = Unlimited Supply of assh**es.
tcbishop12Feb 23, 2012Submitter
“Only in politics do people greet bad news so enthusiastically,” President Obama said before a crowd of enthusiastic students. “You pay more and they’re licking their chops? And you can bet since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans. I’ll save you the suspense: step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We heard the same thing in 2007. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years."
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
Obummer's plan: Green Technology paid for by taxpayers to his cronies.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
http://digg.com/newsbar/Offbeat/most_internet_trolls_are_mentally_ill
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
It reads like a little boy scared to debate an issue.
dauntless1Feb 25, 2012
"Obummer"
That's proof that the poster is a complete coward with nothing to add to any discussion, society, or the human race in general.
So it all evens out I guess eh skippy?
librulklownFeb 25, 2012
It's amazing how the little boys make allegations but give no examples. I guess the dog ate their homework.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
hey douchebag, his name is Obama, and until you can spell it properly I will refer to you as douchebag.
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
My you're so sensitive. Do you want your blankie?
concusionFeb 24, 2012
sensitive, i'm just a realist, Im not the one going around making false claims about people just to support my hatred for them.
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
pot calling the kettle black
concusionFeb 24, 2012
Whats that Obama is an extreme leftist? Care to spout some more falsehoods while calling me a hypocrite?
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
see thats your big mistake
you think laughter and pity equals hatred
it does not
it is just laughter and pity
concusionFeb 24, 2012
sorry bluto, you're a one sided shill hard to take your opinion seriously.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
thats what they all say couscous
inajeepFeb 25, 2012
I'm not sure libru can get past insults or bot like answers to hold a conversation. Best bury and ignore or just ignore until he moves on to a new ID.
eastversewestFeb 24, 2012
Mr. President will be accepted too!
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
so chimpyMcchimpleton does not work?
eastversewestFeb 25, 2012
Hello Troll!!! You Racist POS thanks for showing your true KKKolors.
ageofmasteryFeb 25, 2012
Figures bluto would take pride in calling a black man a monkey.
He does a great job of showing the world just what the far right is truly like
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
oh you two are so cute
that was President Bush's derogatory name
but it just has to be about race when you are a simpleton i guess
alanocuFeb 25, 2012
bluto, liberal rule is you can only refer to Bush as a chimpy. You know, because ageofmastery and other liberals have called Allen West and Herman Cain 'Uncle Tom sellout..' f**kin' liberal hypocrites.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
No, they lost the election. Mcchimpleton was running for president and chimpy was running for vice.
fluxFeb 25, 2012
While I detest his politics President Obama deserves the respect given to the office of President and should not be called names.
dauntless1Feb 25, 2012
Well, it's digg conservatives. They claim to be old school, and supposedly the rule back then was if you want respect, you show some.
Then, they've never shown an ounce of respect for anyone else except their little circle jerk friends and then whine when the adults put them in the corner they deserve.
fluxFeb 26, 2012
that runs both ways for 8 years I listened to you libs scream about Bush being a NAZI, and idiot , a fool and any other name you can call him so the false outrage is a this excuseComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 27, 2012
sorry not true flux. Never referred to Bush as a Nazi, and if we referred to him as any other name it was AFTER he already ruined the country. Bush didn't walk in and on day 1 we called him a retard and accused him of ruining the country. No he ruined the country then we began to call him a retard. 2 very diff things.
sandylandersFeb 27, 2012
No his name is Odumbo, Obummer, f**ktard in chief. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. He is a race baiting, anti american jerk. Obummer sees the US through a prism of resentment and he is out to hurt the US economy any way he can. That means supporting his cronies who give him money to advance his causes. He is the paragon of a DemocRAT.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 27, 2012
sounds like you're the race baiting jerk to me
sandylandersFeb 27, 2012
Racist? Really? Am I trying to set up a "Whites for Mitt" organization? You need to look at this destructive racist for what he is. He is not "owed" respect. He is a man who cannot accept responsibility for himself and his failed policies. I LOVE the prospect of $6 gas because it will cause a recession and allow us to be rid of the scourge of BH Obummer. He is our political enemy, nothing more nothing less.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
I think you missed the other key part of his plan; regulation. We'll just mandate higher fuel economy or that utilities use at least a certain percentage of renewable energy sources. Combine that with the subsidies, and you've just described the difference between Republicans and Democrats (though in fairness some Republicans probably want to subsidize the drilling).
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
The goal is energy independence. The current economy plays an important role here. In order to get to that goal renewable energy has to be made economical and efficient. In the meantime we have to use the resources that have been proven to be economical and efficient. I find it ridiculous for government to subsidize the purchase of a "green" car that goes for $70. Having wind ower and solar energy are technologies that have to be perfected. Oil and nuclear must be used When renewable sources are ready to go online, they still have to be sold to the consumer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
No, the goal is paying the least amount of money possible for electricity. The winner isn't the person who hits 100% renewable energy first, the winner is the person who spends the least total amount of money on electricity.
Over the last 30 years the price of solar panels has been decreasing at a rate of 7% per year. Unless they provide less expensive energy than you use now, you're better off waiting to deploy them for less money next year or some future time. Subsidizing something that will eventually be cheap enough to be economically viable without any subsidy in a couple year is stupid.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/
eastversewestFeb 24, 2012
I really enjoy it when we can agree upon things. It doesn't happen often, but it does.
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
Government should not be in the business of venture capitalism. They'd just as well send tax revenue to Las Vegas and put it all on black.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
"No, the goal is paying the least amount of money possible for electricity."
No, the goal is making the fans spin and the motors run. There are a lot of different ways to do that and, as with all things, the cheapest is usually the crappiest. That's why Walmart sells lead toys. We want the BEST, not the cheapest. You are letting Friedman do you thinking for you. Remember, money is intrinsically valueless. It must have value applied to it and going for the cheapest and most valueless is not the way to do that.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
If you have ever earned enough money to go to vegas, you'd know putting it all on black is probably the SMARTEST thing you can do there! 50-50 odds, that's rare in that city!
barackalypseFeb 25, 2012
@roguegenious, so sorry, but in Las Vegas the roulette wheel has 0 and 00, which means you don't have 50-50 odds on a red or black outside bet, the odds are 1.111 to 1 against you.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Big Oil has had subsidies for at least 30 years.
Guess who is against dropping those subsidies?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/big_oil_spigot.html
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
Not me, eliminate all subsidies of industry and individual. No loans, no welfare, no subsidies, no free stuff from the public treasury for anybody.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
this here is it...
take away the payoffs, payouts and roadblocks
Graf_OrlockFeb 25, 2012
Damn skippy. Stop crony capitalism, regardless of recipient.
Don't forget to get the money out of the green tech too, while you're at it. I'm all for the promise of the technology, but if it can't stand on its feet (same thing as a defunded fossil fuel sector) then we shouldn't be pouring scarce taxpayer money into it.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
Replublicans: drill, drill, drill
Obama: regulate, subsidize, drill
youareretardedFeb 24, 2012
Drilling is only part of his plan, he is seeking other alternatives. As you have pointed out though, the republicans only have one plan.
What would you rather have, a multi solution plan or an all our eggs in one basket plan?
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
I want a Constitutional plan, where the Government allows access to develop necessary commodities without subsidy or interference. If high gas prices are a problem there is no need to try and legislate fuel economy, consumers choices will naturally reward manufacturers with more fuel efficient vehicles. Similarly if solar power or other renewable really make sense, they don't need subsidies, loan guarantees, or tax incentives for people to deploy them.
ageofmasteryFeb 25, 2012
Unfortunately, to you any kind of regulation to prevent spills,etc is "interference"
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Then I assume you were unhappy with a big oil man in the white house? And all the subsidies these already obscenely profitable businesses get? Or should we continue supporting them and let the dick off and fill the Gulf with Oil.
The industry needs more regulation, not less. ALL industries need more regulation, not less.
barackalypseFeb 25, 2012
Bush was an unmitigated disaster. Subsidizing any industries is stupid, subsidizing massive profitable ones is the even more stupid.
Some regulation is a good thing, but our Government has a problem with moderation and tends to over-step the bounds of common sense.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
Obscenely profitable?
Total profits are a lot because they sell a lot. As a percent of sales? Not much.
Seven or eight percent of revenues.
sandylandersFeb 27, 2012
Rogue,
Obscenely profitable? Really? The oil company profit is about $.07/gallon. State and federal taxes in CA amount to $0.66/gallon or 10 times the profit of the oil companies. Yet you defend the raping govts profits. Go sell you BS somewhere else. The oil companies EARN the profit the govt CONFISCATES the profit.
roguegeniusFeb 28, 2012
Sandy,
First thing I googled: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9065584/BP-increases-dividend-as-profits-hit-15bn.html
15 billion pounds (To find that in dollars multiply by 1.5, about 22 billion)
Are you f**king kidding me? Write back when you are serious.
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
He won't really open up drilling.
Sure, he'll *say* that to give you lefty/lib/progressives a talking point.
Then his agencies will drag their feet on permits. They've been doing that for years. Standard passive-aggressive.
Head fake to the right. Break to the left.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 28, 2012
Nobody bothers to 'fake right.' People on the right are too stupid and irrelevant to bothering faking. He deals with your masters, not you. You are nothing.
kasha34Feb 28, 2012
"He deals with your masters, not you."
Masters? Is that some Darth Vader line? Masters?
" You are nothing."
You are bitter. We can almost sympathize. Why should ugliness, stupidity and sexual dysfunction be inflicted all on you? Yes, it sucks to be you.
PS - As of today, Rasmussen says Mitt would beat Barry by a hair. Are you sure we're "irrelevant"?
roguegeniusFeb 28, 2012
Masters, as the in the people who speak in your name. They don't ask you what to say, they inform you of what has been said.
Masters. Google it.
I'm not 'saying' you are nothing. You are nothing. I don't blame you for not liking it. Take it up with your masters. (again, google it)
Rosserman still thinks Douglas won. (Hint: Most people think it was Lincoln.)
kasha34Feb 28, 2012
Who is Rosserman, dummy?
I love this "You are nothing...NOTHING" line.
Sounds like a villain from an Austin Powers movie.
Do you have a little mini-Me?
cybersaurFeb 24, 2012
FTA:"The federal Energy Information Administration said last month that domestic oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. That number is expected to increase to 6.7 million barrels per day in 2020, the highest level since 1994. "
starjotsFeb 24, 2012
EIA also states imports this month are running at 9.1 million barrels per day.
9.1 million x $110 = 1 billion dollars per day, 365 billion/year
2011 Trade Deficit: 558 billion
US Oil Production (peak) 1970: 9.6 million barrels per dayComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fertilebastardFeb 24, 2012
Yep... largely because of new production from state and privately held lands in North Dakota where the feds can't muck it up.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
No, just the oil companies. Well, at least there is no gulf for them to spill into.
miklkitFeb 23, 2012
Look at this graph. It shows the last time gas was this expensive was this time in 2008. Then the price suddenly plummeted until Dec. 2008, when it began climbing again.
Did politics have anything to do with it?
If politics has anything to do with it, and republicons want the economy to tank, then prices will continue to climb. I for one will be watching with great interest.
http://www.makestockmarketprofits.com/gasolinepricehistory.html
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
Democrats controlled both houses back then. They were too busy passing bills (Stimulus, Obamacare) nobody wanted.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Never has a post so short been filled with so many factual inaccuracies. Do you ever tell the truth?
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
Such as?
apokalyps2547Feb 24, 2012
They were passing "Obamacare" in 2008? Oh really?
eastversewestFeb 24, 2012
You mean in 2008 when Obama was our President-Elect right? Now if you had said TARP, you would have been close.
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
When Obama took office, he was like a child who just ignited a cherry bomb under his piggy bank and just appointed hall monitor.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 24, 2012
Translation: you're such a pathetic waste of skin that you can't even troll right. You fail at life and you fail at failing.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
That is pretty weak, libru. At least when I troll, you FEEL it.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Obama didn't take the oath of office until January 2009.
You really don't expect us to be as stupid as you faux noise disciples do you?
adaguyFeb 24, 2012
'Democrats controlled both houses back then'
What an intelligent remark!
Really??? Who do you think sets the goals for gas prices?? The politicians? Or big oil??
kasha34Feb 28, 2012
Obama appointed a guy who loudly announced his goal was for us to pay European levels for gas.
adaguyFeb 28, 2012
Oh! well now that you've said that, it changes everything! WoW! talk about producing facts. Nothing like being specific, huh? So he appointed a guy who said that huh?
And I guess you're gonna tell me that this "guy" has control over all gas prices?
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
If Republicans controlled the cost of gas (they don't) why would they cause a spike during a middle of a campaign when their main opponent's strategy was to run against the lame-duck (in more than one sense of the word) in the White House rather than his actual opponent?
Wouldn't it make more sense to keep it artificially low? Sorry, but the logic doesn't follow.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
Keeping it artificially low would benefit Obama, with it high, they can blame him, and unfortunately, ignorant people will believe it.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
No, you misunderstood what I said - if they are doing this now, why did they do it during the 2008 campaign? They should have kept it low...
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
Maybe because they knew McCain had slim chance of winning, especially with crazy lady as vice. But i agree, they don't control the price. In answer to your question, i really don't know the answer.
adaguyFeb 24, 2012
As things now stand, they know Obama is a shoe in. But if fuel gets high enough, the markets will plummet, and Obama will get blamed.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
I think a lot more than gas prices can sink Obama's reelection campaign. I think the economy in general has a lot more to do if he wants to be a shoo-in.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
Gas high = food high
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
They just don't get it bluto. The Lefts main concern is to make sure the oil companies fold or at least don't make a profit.
adaguyFeb 25, 2012
Let's stop and think for a minute, what will effect the economy more than anything else????
ENERGY PRICES!
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
You are right, but I've always wondered why Obamma doesn't play the Republicans. Instead of just lowering the payroll tax - abolish it for the rest of the year. The Republicans have been saying that its too small, on a per capita basis, to have any effect. Do that.
And, even more, allow for oil exploration within certain areas. He'd take a hit from his environmental base, but come election time, what are they going to do... vote Republican? And, in doing so, he takes an issue away from Republicans.
Just those two things alone would rev up the economy and pretty much mean he would win reelection. What would they have to hit him on? HCR?
adaguyFeb 25, 2012
" I've always wondered why Obamma doesn't play the Republicans. Instead of just lowering the payroll tax - abolish it for the rest of the year. "
If he abolishes the payroll tax, who do you think the republickin's will blame when the next budget is proposed, and has a massive deficit included?
"And, even more, allow for oil exploration within certain areas. He'd take a hit from his environmental base, but come election time, what are they going to do... vote Republican? And, in doing so, he takes an issue away from Republicans."
Drilling for more oil will only produce greater speculation. It's mostly due to false bidding, but you don't seem to understand that.
This mess won't be straightened out until we put the regulations back in place that were removed under Clinton.
Read this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pwbpn/guess_what_law_goes_into_effect_the_same_exact/
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
Complaints about the deficit are going to happen one way or the other. I don't buy that it'll create a bigger issue than it is now. He's got an projected 1.2 trillion dollar deficit now. I really don't think that will hurt him near as much as people say.
As for the drilling/oil exploration - this wasn't to lower gas prices - we're not going to be able to. I twas to take an issue away from the Republicans. And I guess create some jobs in the process, but I don't buy it'll create that many. Then again, look at North Dakota and its natural gas boom...
Obama's promises come with an expiration date (remember Gitmo?), so what harm does it do him to allow for more oil exploration now, but then clamp it back down on November 10th after the election is good and over?
This is about politics and winning... which sadly takes greater priority that what is good for the country.
GentlemanGhost542Feb 25, 2012
more like get scapegoated when blame lies on multiple reasons
cherwilcoFeb 25, 2012
"But if fuel gets high enough, the markets will plummet, and Obama will get blamed."
and that is EXACTLY what the gop masters (big oil) is trying to do
kasha34Feb 28, 2012
A "shoe" in? Rasmussen today finds that Romney would beat him by a hair.
cherwilcoFeb 25, 2012
during the 08 election run, big oil (read gop's masters) thought there was no way Obama would win. there was also no political gain in raising gas prices at the time because who would they blame it on? now that Obama is nearing the end of his 1st term its actually a good (albeit slimy) political strategy to artificially inflate gas prices while they have the perfect scapegoat to blame it on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
"during the 08 election run, big oil (read gop's masters) thought there was no way Obama would win"
What the heck are you smoking? Obama was winning by most polls by the beginning of September!
cherwilcoFeb 25, 2012
so they had a 2 month heads up? so what! the point is if they had raised the prices at that point in time who would they have blamed it on? they couldn't/wouldn't pin it on bush who was on his way out the door anyways (like I said in my original comment)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
You're missing the point - oil was already rising to record highs by then. Even when McCain was ahead. It does not make sense that the evil Republicans were behind it now, but not then. Well, maybe if you believe someone else was behind it then (by that logic, Soros and other billionaires who might be able to pull something like that off).
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
When Bush was in office the Democrats whined about gas prices. They wanted gas to be high so they could blame Bush, Cheney and Haliburton.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
That's true, and when bush opened up land for drilling, the price dropped like a rock.
All Political Games
adaguyFeb 24, 2012
But at election time the cost of gas went down, then it went back up after the election. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
Let's see what we had. There was a Democrat President. There was a Democrat Senate. There was a Democratic House. I find it hard to see how the Republicans had anything to do with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
librulklownFeb 24, 2012
Let's see what we had. There was a Democrat President. There was a Democrat Senate. There was a Democratic House. I find it hard to see how the Republicans had anything to do with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adaguyFeb 25, 2012
Didja’ ever notice the drop in gas prices right before the elections while Bush was pres? Well in case you didn’t take a look.
Notice at the change in gas prices from 1992, to 2008.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/stats/gasprice.htm
Now look at how mid west gas prices went down prior to the 2006 election, and back up right after the election. Notice the sudden drop from July till November. Take a look at how they dropped right before the 2008 election.
http://www.missourigasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
Must be a coincidence, huh?
quisquisFeb 25, 2012
So gas prices drop right before elections... and this implicates any one group of people how?
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
"So gas prices drop right before elections... and this implicates any one group of people how?"
That's the point, it doesn't implicate any one or any party and anyone saying anything remotely close to that (parties are wilfully raising/lowering the price of gas) is a f**king idiot.
elliotysFeb 24, 2012
Do the republicans even understand that any oil this country produces just enters the world supply. It doesn't become "our" oil. More drilling would mean more oil for the world, but it would do very little to bring down oil costs here. Plus we would be stuck with all the environmental wreckage it ALWAYS causes.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
yes most do
do you understand what more of a commodity does to the overall price to that commodity?
do you understand that the US is driving less then ever (less demand) but yet prices still up?
lack of a leader maybe?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
911ducktailFeb 24, 2012
more of the commodity? lack of a leader? not really
even though we are now net-exporters of oil for the first time in 60 years, *because* of Obama, it does f**k-all to alleviate the demand generated by not one, but two giant ass countries who are just starting to go through their industrial revolutions.
add in to the mix the Republicon sabre-rattling over Iran and them closing the straight of hermoz peppered with massive arcade-based speculation of gasoil and its quite obvious that this spike in prices has nothing to do with Obama, or our decreasing demand
fertilebastardFeb 24, 2012
"closing the straight of hermoz"
Dang!! I didn't get the memo..... and either did the rest of the world.
911ducktailFeb 24, 2012
you need to sign up for the mailing list apparently. threatening to close it outright and undergoing "maneuvers" means what exactly to you then?
---
"The U.S. Navy's 5th fleet Wednesday warned Iran that any disruption of traffic flowing through the vital Strait of Hormuz oil route "will not be tolerated."
The warning came after Iran's navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran's English language Press TV that "closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or as Iranians say it will be easier than drinking a glass of water."
"But right now, we don't need to shut it as we have the Sea of Oman under control and we can control the transit," said Sayyari, who is leading 10 days of exercises in the Strait. His reference to control was unclear.
In response, 5th Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich said, "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45805706/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-navy-warns-iran-hormuz-disruption-will-not-be-tolerated/
fertilebastardFeb 25, 2012
It means they are doing some sabre rattling.
It is not closed. Don't underestimate the US Navy
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
Don't overestimate them either. If the straights are mined, that will shut it down. Iran if fully capable of doing that. As are several other countries and the US.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
OPEC controls world supply. We produce more, they produce less.
Keep believing that oil is bought and sold in anything slightly resembling a free market.
freeformjazzFeb 24, 2012
I wish a true free market existed.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
But that is what is out there right now, and is why there is an earnest effort to regulate them.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
A free market would allow competition, not collusion and monopolies written into law by the two parties.
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Oil is a fungible commodity (for the most part). But if the US were to start producing much, much more, supply would increase, helping offset the demand. That means prices fall. That's just basic economics.
As for the environmental costs... I agree. We should be switching all possible energy generation to nuclear-backbone. Currently solar and wind are simply not viable as long-term, secure energy production. And current technology is MUCH better than what we've seen, even with the disaster in Japan.
I've always wondered why nuclear wasn't seen as the bridge from oil to renewables/clean energy. Yes, its dangerous. But its MUCH safer and cleaner than oil/gas/coal.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Nukie power is just a huge cash cow with no practical way yet to get rid of its huge waste products. If you want to pay for those things I will happily come out of retirement to build them for you.
Cha-Ching!! :0)
Solar on the other hand would already be viable if it had Big Oil's subsidies.
https://sites.google.com/site/nvcphotos/11
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
Solar's main drawback is the lack of energy density compared to traditional sources. For example...
"To get an idea of just how dilute a source solar is compared even to coal, consider a lump of coal capable of yielding a kilowatt-hour of electricity, which would weigh about a pound, and ask how long the Sun would have to shine on it to deposit the same amount of energy that the coal will release when burned. The area of its shadow, which measures the sunlight intercepted, would be about fifteen square inches. In Arizona in July, with a 24-hour annualized average insolation of 240 watts per square meter, it would take 435 hours, or almost three weeks , for this amount of surface to receive a kilowatt-hour of sunshine. For the average location in the U.S., allowing for bad weather and cloud cover, a reasonable estimate would be twice that. But to obtain a kilowatt-hour of electricity, at the ten to twenty percent efficiency attainable today, which appears to be approaching its limit, we'd be talking somewhere between thirteen and seven months....
I wonder if the people who talk glibly about attempting to match such feats artificially really comprehend the scale of the engineering that they're proposing. A 1,000-MW solar conversion plant, for example – the same size as I've been using for the comparisons of coal and nuclear – would cover 50 to 100 square miles with 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons of other metals such as chromium and titanium – a thousand times the material needed to construct a nuclear plant of the same capacity. These materials are not cheap, and real estate doesn't come for nothing. Moreover, these materials are all products of heavy, energy-hungry industries in their own right that produce large amounts of waste, much of it toxic. So much for "free" and "clean" solar power. "Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
Seems many Republicans are for nationalizing the American oil companies.....
TheNoizeFeb 25, 2012
Americans aren't stupid, but they sure have a nasty epidemic of crap s**t education devastating their people.
karmashockFeb 25, 2012
Republicans didn't stop the pipeline, ban offshore drilling, or issue practically no licenses to drill on land within the US.
Democrats did that.
This is going to be one of the big issues the republicans use to hammer the democrats and it will not go well for them.
To make up the losses here, the democrats will have to hit the republicans somewhere else. But if this is all we talk about... the dems will get slaughtered in the polls.
markglFeb 24, 2012
I remember all those stupid bush bumper stickers about remember when gas was x.xx amount. We're just returning the favor.
analogassassinFeb 24, 2012
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Why are you for massive government subsidies on the price of gasoline? Shouldn't we be paying a fair market price for fuel (probably something in the range of $20/gallon) instead of relying on government to spend massive amounts of money in order to keep in cheap?
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
well look at that
i guess Americans are stupid
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
Shhhhh, people don't like to be reminded of that. /s
fertilebastardFeb 24, 2012
I'd be interested to see the math where you came up with the $20.00/gallon..
....and I'm not buying the fixed cost of the wars that many on the left like to include.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
incognito2008Feb 25, 2012
Just turn on Fox news every second its about Obama and gas prices. I guess the Republicans are desperate.
berkanaFeb 25, 2012
No, actually, I disagree. Americans are stupid.
roguegeniusFeb 25, 2012
I do too. I didn't even think it was a controversial statement, but got dugg down too.
brettbuchanan2Feb 24, 2012
Well maybe it's time to drill. It's either that or fight for oil in the middle east. I mean come on, we're the ones filling up our gas tanks with middle east oil but we bitch when the government uses force to keep the flow of cheap oil going. We're the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Democrats and Republicans are all the same. Our national debt goes up no matter which party holds congress or the White House. We continue to roll along with no long term energy plan to supplant our dependence on foreign oil. We may as well elect Charlie Sheen for President and hand congress over to Wall Street - which is pretty much where we've been for the last few decades. Zero efficiency from our elected bodies. Zero effectiveness. But hey, I hear there's a new iPhone coming out soon...
starjotsFeb 24, 2012
Problem is we are drilling and have never stopped. Oil production in the US peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels/day and has never - even with Alaska, which is now substantially declining - come back to the same level. It probably never will hit that level again. Even if it did, we use consume 18.8 million barrels per day in 2009.
We cannot drill our way out of this one. Sad but true.
starjotsFeb 24, 2012
I generally agree with President Obama's comments but believe he does a disservice to us all by not simply stating some simple facts and perhaps even some *gasp* numbers on the subject. I would classify his remarks as non-information while classifying the $2 gas pundits as misinformation.
Specifically, world crude oil production (not count ethanol, LNG etc) has basically been the same since 2005. World oil supply is inelastic. Demand has grown worldwide, particularly in eastern Asia. Price per barrel therefore went way up. The recession brought them back down in 2008 but since then they have been climbing steadily and now they are again above $100/barrel.
Our recent increases in production in the US are a pittance (~1%) of worldwide demand and can have little impact on prices. And forget the boom in natural gas in the US, that has nothing to do with the price of gasoline - two different things, two different uses.
The real question is the policy going forward to try to lock down the oil supply in the middle east for ourselves (in competition with China mostly) or encourage a shift and conserve a bit. Oil is finite and everybody wants it. We can pretend that drilling the answer (we tried that in the 70s) or actually discuss the real problem and grope toward a solution. There are no easy answers on this one.
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
The easy answer is to move from a fossil fuel source to a renewable one. Guess who's winning that battle?
Doing anything less will just prolong the inevitable, even higher gas/fuel prices.
gkiltzFeb 25, 2012
This is a classic bubble. Just like what housing went through. All bubbles burst sooner or later.
Like any other bubble, the SOONER it bursts, the LESS the overall damage when it does.
leeswFeb 24, 2012
I remember Democrats "playing politics" with higher gas prices during the Bush administration. I also remember Obama saying he wanted gas to cost $5 per gallon so Americans would drive less. But sure...let's ignore history so Obama can skirt accountability.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Yes!
kasha34Feb 25, 2012
So drilling for more oil won't help?
If beef prices were too high, would growing more cows help?
If wheat prices were too high, would growing more corn help?
How does he get away with saying such illogical stupid things? And the dummies in the crowd nod their heads as if it made any sense at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
God you are so f**king stupid!
Here is a simple question for you to illustrate your stupidity.
If the price of beef goes up in Germany does the price of beef go up in Canada? Do you know why it doesn't?
kasha34Feb 28, 2012
Why don't you tell me, genius.
roguegeniusFeb 28, 2012
That is amazingly stupid, even for you. More cows doesn't change the net cost of feed? More wheat is not effected by the cost of shipping more wheat?
Personally, I think these things WILL help some (not nearly as much as you think, nor as soon), but I'm not stupid enough to boil a calculus problem down to arithmetic.
I know, you don't understand calculus, but some of us do. Listen to smart people instead of condemning them for no reason. They don't make as many mistakes as you.
kasha34Feb 28, 2012
You two are such phonies. Of course things effect each other.
But, all other things being equal, when there's more of a commodity the price goes down. When there's less of a commodity, the price goes up.
Since all-other-things are never actually equal, the price-up and price-down
are not going to be exactly even or proportional. The relationship still remains.
When there's more supply the price goes down.
When there's less supply the prices goes up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
Obama is singing to the choir on this. Sure the hard left and the fellow travelers at Digg will swallow this hook, line and sinker.
Its a sad state he is in that he has to work so hard to keep his most ardent supporters lined up behind him (perhaps he should lead them from behind?).
However, the independents that are going to be paying $6/gal this summer are not going to believe anything he says. He will bear the blame for this, right or wrong, because that is what happens when youre president.
Oh, and yeah, we HAVE been hearing this every year for 30 years and it falls on deaf ears and no new drilling happens and no new refineries are built. But one has to wonder that IF we had built more refineries over the years and IF we had drilled more, how much more oil would we have? How much more stable would the price of oil be if it was produced here, where the country is stable, instead of in Iran, SA, Mexico and Venezula where the governments are not stable?
He contradicts his own stupid arguement!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
swallow it?
digg libbs will take that hook, line and sinker wrap it in pork fat, eat then crap it out like a goose so they can led around by their butt leashesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
"However, the independents that are going to be paying $6/gal this summer are not going to believe anything he says"
And they should believe the GOP? The call was to drill our way out of high gas prices. Production is at a 10 year high and we export refined crude at record levels. Where is the saving at the pump promised by Republicans - it should be there right? We have more oil than before and we obviously have more gas if we are able to export so much of it.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Hey! Don't be trying to get all logical.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
You Sir, Are Correct!
anglosaxongalFeb 25, 2012
Sabotage the big thieves? Where there's a will there is a way.....
anglosaxongalFeb 25, 2012
Sabotage the big thieves? Where there's a will there is a way.....
martoqFeb 25, 2012
We aren't stupid...until it comes time to vote. Then we vote with uneducated emotional decisions.
markglFeb 24, 2012
Obama is such a jerk, assbag, or fill in with whatever you can think of.
karmashockFeb 25, 2012
you made me chuckle...
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
The Dems played politics when gas prices skyrocketed under Bush, too, so don't expect to get a pass. And considering all of the misguided effort and wasted money on green initiatives like Solyndra, the president had really better pray they go back down again.
When Bush announced that he'd open up more offshore drilling, prices came back down again. Obama, so far, has simply lambasted the GOP and yelled, "It's not my fault". That's hardly leadership.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
911ducktailFeb 24, 2012
BHO has opened up the entire eastern seaboard to drilling, lifted the moratorium for drilling in the gulf (while not instituting any new safety precautions as a result of the Deep Horizon spill,) and opened up drilling in northern alaska. thats hardly him saying its not his fault.
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
Read:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/judge-to-obama-administration-get-moving-on-drilling-permits/
911ducktailFeb 24, 2012
sounds like a typical heritage hitjob to be honest.
from your article
"Part of the problem is merely confusion. CNN Money reports that with respect to some permits, “the government said four of the five applications are not technically before it. "
from the embedded CNN article
"The government says it has approved 32 permits for shallow water wells with only 7 pending applications. For deepwater oil wells, the agency says it has only 3 pending permits."
from politifact
"According to the report, 39 shallow-water permits for new wells have been issued since June 8, 2010, when new rules and information requirements were put into effect. Shallow water drilling operations were not affected by the deepwater drilling moratorium following the gulf oil spill. And there were lots more shallow-water well permits issued by the Obama administration prior to June 8, 2010. Remember, Bachmann's statement referred to permits issued "under the Obama administration since they came into office."
In addition, there have been six deepwater well permits issued since Oct. 12, 2010, when the gulf moratorium was lifted. Five of those were for projects that were under way prior to the moratorium. The operators were required to come back and meet the new, modified standards."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-claims-there-has-been-just-one-ne/
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
From your politifact link:
"Lee Hunt, executive director of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, said there has been a "molasses effect" with permitting by the Obama administration. Even the 39 permits for new shallow water wells is dramatically lower than previous levels. And even with six deepwater permits issued in the last month, as well as the ones projected to be approved this year, permits for deepwater wells are likely to be a third of what was projected prior to the gulf oil spill. The permitting process has undeniably slowed, Hunt said, but as the numbers above show, Bachmann's statement -- at least the way she worded it -- is wrong."
So whatever bs Bachman spewed isn't the issue; the pace of issuing permits has slowed dramatically across the board. It also can't be argued that Obama hasn't appointed ant-oil and fossil fuel executives to high-ranking positions within his administration.
But in any case, in politics perception is reality and as I said earlier, the administration had better hope that things dramatically change, and quickly. If not, they're going to hang this around his neck like a 1,000lb albatross.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
911ducktailFeb 24, 2012
hang-wringing by the "director of the IAD" who oddly enough doesnt back up his specious claim with *any* facts
-----
"The oil and gas industry has nearly 7,200 permits to drill on public lands that it has yet to use, according to Bureau of Land Management data obtained by Greenwire.
The unused, but still valid, drilling permits paint a starkly different picture from what industry and some in Congress have argued is a concerted effort by the Obama administration to lock up federal lands to energy production, said Dave Alberswerth, senior policy adviser on energy issues for the Wilderness Society and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton administration.
...
In January, Greenwire reported that although BLM had issued 4,090 drilling permits in fiscal 2010, oil and gas operators drilled 1,480 new wells, using about 36 percent of permits issued (Greenwire, Jan. 13).
"This idea that somehow the Obama administration is restricting lands for oil and gas development is just a joke," said Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society."
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/25/25greenwire-oil-and-gas-industry-sitting-on-7200-drilling-21290.html
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
"We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years.”
So maybe its time to try it out. Or, maybe the President would like to explain how more oil supply won't lower prices in order to justify not drilling.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
because in magic "progressive" hate progress land, more oil actually ignore all economic laws and just goes to killing dolphins and children.
if you add more oil to the commodities market it is the only market in the world that will;
1. increase price
2.kill babies
3. turn drinking water into algae
quite amazing reallyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedFeb 24, 2012
Quick question; has our oil production gone up? What about our consumption? Does that correlate to what you think is happening?
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Oil production on private land has, Obama has made sure everything on govt. land has decreased. It takes 5 years for an oil well to produce so obviously this increased production is all from the Bush years.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
starjotsFeb 25, 2012
Good question if you mean has world oil production gone up (NO) and world demand (YES). It is supply and demand but on a global not national scale.
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
No that wasn't the question, the question was, "has OUR oil production gone up and has OUR demand gone up".
But you illustrate a good point, it doesn't matter what we do in the US as it's the world's supply and demand that affects gas prices, so anyone claiming they have a plan to lower gas prices is lying to you.
fleischnerFeb 24, 2012
A while back, Obama said he WANTED higher gas prices, but was just not pleased with how quickly they rose at the time. Nothing is more evidentiary and political than that statement. Everything else PALES in comparison. And yet you idiots voted him in. Some of us ARE stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eastversewestFeb 24, 2012
citation?
bwiiiFeb 25, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gehaf7_TBAs
Here's the link. I expect you'll deny he said what he really said, parse what was said, and explain why what he said doesn't matter any more. But, there's the link.
kcast985Feb 23, 2012
So continuing to drill for oil is a bad strategy then what is an effective strategy giving money to 'green energy' companies and then they go out of business.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
arachnydFeb 23, 2012
He knows not the stop.
hitdrumhardFeb 24, 2012
How you talk like Yoda that is not.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
If your Obama, it is.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
If oil is so evil, perhaps democrats should stop using it.
Democrats are like drug addicts the complain about people using drugs.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Do you have a statistic that indicates that "Democrats" use more oil per year than "Republicans" do?
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
My comment had nothing to do with the percentage of oil consumption by republicans and democrats.
Democrats hate oil. Their agenda is anti oil. People are free to have agendas and believe whatever they want to. Im just saying it would be nice that if the democrats hated oil so much they should perhaps try being a little consistent and stop using oil.
Then I gave the excellent example of a drug addict complaining about people using drugs and trying to get other people to stop using drugs while they still use drugs themselves. Its a bit hypocritical.
I would guess that republicans use more oil than democrats. But republicans are trying to end the use of oil either!
I need to think of something I dont use, that other people do use, and then try to get the government to ban it. Why do I care? I dont use it. It doesnt hurt me at all to have a ban on something I dont use anyway.
I know, lets ban Subarus! No one will miss them (what I mean by that is I wont miss them and that is what matters).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Liberals hate profit. That is why they back Solyndra, LightSquared and the Volt. If the Volt ever starts making money look for them to denounce it.
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
"Liberals hate profit"
Brilliant! Who told you to say that?
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
comments from the Left on digg.
youareretardedFeb 24, 2012
"Brilliant! Who told you to say that?"
The man on the tv of course!
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
But. But. But. "All the richest people are Democrats."
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Liberals - here defined as anyone who believes that global climate change is happening, is accelerating and is caused by human activity - do work hard to reduce their own footprint. We also realize that reducing our own footprint is not enough.
In my ideal world we would be using the fossil fuels that we have sparingly. "Energy" would come from centralized sources that could be upgraded, made more efficient and swapped out for newer/better technologies as they arise.
I pay extra each month to get my electricity from renewable resources, but I'm not so foolish as to realize that this is going to slow down the effects of global climate change. We need buy in from everyone, and an environment where *everyone* realizes that turning off a light when you leave the room, buying a more efficient air conditioner, and buying the most fuel efficient vehicle that suits your needs is the *minimum* we should all be doing.
All Americans need to buy in and look for solutions. Gasoline hit $4 a gallon and we consumed less. Eventually economics will force us to reduce consumption, but it would be far easier if we did it now without suffering through massive price increases.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
I always appreciate your well reasoned arguments.
I have yet to convince myself that 1)global warming is happening and 2) it is caused my humans.
Let me explain why I cant believe it (yet). I am profoundly skeptical of these "movements" espeically where there is a clear financial and political gain to be made by the movement. Because there is financial and political gain to be made by the global warming movement, there is incentive to manipulate information in order to manipulate people so that a specific agenda can be achieved. This is not just for global waming, but for every agenda and political movement.
So, because of my skeptical nature, I have a hard time believing in anything. It could be a character flaw, but Id be really skeptical if you told me so.
As for the cost of gasoline. Obama and his Energy secretary have both said they would like to see gas prices increase in order to make non hydrocarbon based energy sources more competitive with hydrocarbons. So, there is a stated agenda. An agenda the most powerful man in the world with lots of resources is endeavoring to pass. It makes me wonder if there isnt some manipulation taking place that is causing the price of oil to go up in order to achieve his agenda.
We have a president and his energy secretary that want gas prices to go up. Gas prices are going up. Coincedence? To me its not.
Now, this may surprise you, but I recycle, I purchase efficient products, I buy organic food, I hate Monsanto. I like clean air and fresh water. I try to live responsibly. I have my own well and septic system. I can even produce my own electricity. I probably have very similar desires about the environment as you do with one exception. I have no desire to legislate my beliefs because I might be wrong. You see, Im even skeptical about my own beliefs. What if Im wrong and Ive advocated for laws and regulations to be passed that affect millions of people? I dont want that on my conscience.
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but I think a version of Pascals wager is appropriate here. The worst that can happen by moving to a sustainable energy solution is cleaner air, cleaner water,and an overall better quality of life.
I think that global warming has been hijacked by the politicians and made political. Nice post btw, I like when people can discuss without the inflammatory language.
adaguyFeb 25, 2012
'I have yet to convince myself that 1)global warming is happening and 2) it is caused my humans.'
Nothing new here! I can show you republickin neighbors I have who think the space flights are all staged, and they swear that it's the government attempt to fool us into allowing higher taxes. I can show you others that say sex education is pointless, I can show you still others who think the work is flat.
You don't have a franchise on stupidity and ignorance, you just have more then your share of it.
iboxFeb 24, 2012
"Gasoline hit $4 a gallon and we consumed less."
and then drove the price back down.
bwiiiFeb 25, 2012
And when we don't all 'buy in', I assume you'll MAKE US buy in, right?
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
Nailed it again this beautiful morning!
savetheseaFeb 24, 2012
No one is trying to get the government to "ban" oil. There are people that would like to see the world use less of it and eventually transition off of it, but to say they want to ban it is pure exaggeration.
Many people that do want to see an end to the use of oil do, in fact, use much less that others.
Funny but I would think that all those screaming for energy independence would be the first to try and use as little as possible. Instead, they just repeat the misinformation fed to them by big oil and their masters.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
conservatives are religious nuts, they should not use technology since they don't believe in science.
stuffradioFeb 24, 2012
Your ignorance is astounding.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
evolution? climate change? prove me wrong
freeformjazzFeb 24, 2012
I agree with the evidence on both of those and I am a generally conservitive person when it comes to economic policy. You are stating something and then assigning an entire group to it. People within groups are not carbon copies of one another.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
you realize i was responding to a comment that said liberals are anti oil and should not use oil.
fertilebastardFeb 24, 2012
Hell.... Liberals should not use air!!
/s
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
Oh the Darwin monkey has spoken, won't be long before the Apes take over.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
hard to tell if you are mocking evolution or making a joke.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
I totally agree! It would make them more consistent wouldnt it?
If they get sick they should pray to get better rather than go to one of those evil doctors that believes in science.
iboxFeb 24, 2012
I'm a conservative, and I haven't been to church in 5 years... 20 on a regular basis. I am in no way a religious nut. and most of my friends are the same way...
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
The Digg left thinks anyone who call's themselves or actually is "conservative", must be a religious nut. They don't own a dictionary.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
sorry Frank, your "conservative" view point got hijacked by radical morons and not once have I seen anyone sane stand up and fight back against them. That isn't anyones fault but your own. Until any of you have the balls to stand up and say im a conservative who believes in science and facts shut the f**k up.
Ouzel7Feb 24, 2012
LOL - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/blame-rising-oil-prices-o_b_106433.html
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
I saw that earlier today and couldn't believe it. Just a thought question - how long does Bush have to be out of office before he's no longer to blame.
If Obama gets reelected, does he get to blame Bush for any issues until the end of his term? What about the next Democratic candidate? When does this end?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 24, 2012
Idunno, is the right's behavior any indication? There are republicans who are still blaming things on Carter.
fertilebastardFeb 24, 2012
Really?? Well, maybe for the Community Reinvestment Act, but it was Clinton, Frank, Dodd, et. al. that put it on steroids.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 25, 2012
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act would be the largest culprit if you're looking for a single piece of legislation to blame. Without it, the subprime mortgage crisis was simply poor people with bad credit defaulting. That happens all the time.
But with it, and in particular with Senator Phil Gramm who threatened to derail a compromise on an omnibus spending bill unless it contained his pet provision that disallowed the SEC from regulating of the swaps market... which includes the infamous credit default swaps in which lenders buy and sell the possibility of loans defaulting. With no oversight there was a bubble inflating even faster than the actual real estate bubble, and it produced a situation where one foreclosure negatively impacted multiple financial institutions, all of whom were claiming that paper as an asset and who had paid bonuses and dividends based on that fake money. Fo added fun Gramm also included provisions to deregulate the energy market at the request of an energy company called Enron. By now the Enron fiasco seems like chump change huh?
So there are certainly democrats with dirty hands, not the least of whom was Bill Clinton. And he since has indicated his regret that he didn't do a better job of regulating CDS (hindsight being 20/20). And of course he was a lame duck at that point trying to get a bill passed that ended up getting signed less then two weeks before he left office.
But one doesn't need to think too hard about where the philosophy of "all regulation is bad" comes from. And when one pursues accountability, the author of a piece of legislation, who refused to bring a compromise to the floor unless said legislation was included in it, seems like a tempting target.
bwiiiFeb 25, 2012
Can you link to a quote from either GWB or GHWB blaming Carter for anything, ANYTHING while either of them was a sitting President?
TGRHvWGAFFeb 25, 2012
That's not what I said, but thanks for trying to twist what I said into an argument you can win. Here's a link backing up what I did say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmCs7isX9R8
bwiiiFeb 25, 2012
A Minority leader blaming a past President? Fully expected demagoguery, whether it be Cantor, Pelosi, Boehner or Reid. A sitting President blaming a past President? Unexpectedly amateurish, childish, narcissistic and petty demagoguery.
You're welcome.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 25, 2012
Ah, so you mean something more like this:
"In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around,"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-bush-economy_x.htm
But really, I don't care who said what. My very simple point was that there are those on the right who are capable of the twists of logic necessary to blame the economy on Obama, Clinton, and Carter with neither Bush, Bush Sr., or Reagan sharing an ounce of culpability. You can get your undergarments in a bunch about a president speaking the very plain truth, but in reality any objective discussion about the economy circa 2009 has to start with the notion that we were hemorrhaging jobs.
FrankLuskaFeb 24, 2012
The Blame Game Never Stops, it's one of the ways the two parties keep the country divided.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
ding ding ding
winner winner
chicken dinner
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
ummm, i like chicken.
Redeemable coupon or gift card? :-)
stevanoskiFeb 25, 2012
lol
bluto36Feb 25, 2012
EBT card of course
TGRHvWGAFFeb 25, 2012
In the case of evaluating the effectiveness of economic policies that have gone into effect under Obama, that need not be true.
There's a very simple objective approach that can be used - you simply don't take factor in economic data from the first year of a president's administration. The logic is fairly sound - the year after a new president takes office is a "transition year", particularly when there's a change of party. When evaluating and comparing a president's performance, it's often unclear for that first year if positives or negatives are left over from the previous president or resultant from the new one.
The problem is, conservatives will never let that happen with Obama. If his performance is evaluated by economic indicators from 1/1/2010 to date then it's outstanding: nearly 3 million jobs have been added and unemployment is down by 1.2%. As Obama himself admits, there's room for improvement... but it's certainly not shabby.
By comparison, if you look at the same metrics for January 2009 to date, the numbers are much less impressive: he's at a net of 1.2 million jobs lost and unemployment has gone up by a percentage point.
So to better answer the OP's question: For as long as the right tries to claim that Obama's not doing a good job because of economic data that includes Bush's leftovers, people like me will point out that the lost jobs happened in the first year of Obama's administration, and most of them happened in the first four months.
What's pathetic is, nearly every economic talking point coming from the right is a desperate and pathetic attempt to divert attention from that simple truth.
realcoolguy9022Feb 23, 2012
Rather ironic coming from the man who ran on 'Hope and Change'. At least gas prices are measurable.
frostableMar 2, 2012
Actually it's probably due to speculators in the oil markets. Oil contracts are traded out in the open and just about anybody could trade the commodity.Rising middle east tensions have brought out speculators by the ton and they are placing bullish bets on the price of oil.
wulfgar3dFeb 27, 2012
And politicians are blaming everything but themselves for the problem. It is our government's debt funded by the FED dollar printing that is the cause. More dollars chasing the same amount of goods.
It's simply inflation, a hidden tax on the 99%.
You didn't think we could keep this up forever did you?
fertilebastardFeb 24, 2012
Playing politics with oil prices??? The democrats would never ever do that... Like when in September 2000, Clinton dumped the strategic oil reserve on the market with oil at a whopping $40.00/ barrel to help Al Gores campaign.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/21/national/main235327.shtml
The democrats have been anti oil and coal production for decades playing to their hippy dippy environmental base, and now it's come back to bite them in the ass. They should be called out on it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 24, 2012
There are thousands of acres of leases in oil companies hands..they are not using the leases, just holding them fallow.. They are off in third world countries drilling there.
They do not want to flood the market with barrels because the price would drop. It's much more profitable to be in a 3rd world contry, there are no regulations at all or very easy to bribe if there are any rules.
should not be allowed to buy leases if they aren't going to use them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Feb 24, 2012
so you are saying the oil companies hate Obama...
must be racism
FrankLuskaFeb 25, 2012
If we and the rest of the world uses up the rest of the worlds reserves, and we can still drill and have oil, guess who wins that game. The oil companies have strategically planned this for decades.
laurahoustonFeb 25, 2012
no he will give those leases to someone else, like the 2 thousand gulf leases they just sold.
sandylandersFeb 25, 2012
Oil production in the gulf is down 30%. Outer continental shelf off limits. The only growth in oil and natural gas production is occurring on private and state owned lands where our POS president has no say. Look at North Dakota with the opening of the Bakken oil fields, 3.3% unemployment. Odumbo plays the same DemocRAT card, "there are no quick solutions." No kidding but if we had opened up ALL federal lands to drilling 20 yrs ago we would not be in this situation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedFeb 25, 2012
Are you saying it matter where the oil comes from? Production is up:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production
US consumption is also down:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=91
" "there are no quick solutions." No kidding but if we had opened up ALL federal lands to drilling 20 yrs ago we would not be in this situation."
And then what? What happens when the oil is gone? What's the game plan then? Will you be saying, "If we would have focused on alternative energy sources 20 years ago we would not be in this situation".
You are short sighted, look at the big picture, something politicians and Americans in general have not been willing to do.
aserer511Feb 25, 2012
these prices are not obama's fault-they are in a way much more bush's legacy. however, obama has made conscious decisions which will prevent them from being mitigated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.