digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

Gingrich Uses Big Oil to Claim Economists Support Drilling

thinkprogress.org — Gingrich touted the work of an intern at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, who he claimed “understands more more about economics than most of the politicians in this country.” His proof? The intern found a paper arguing that “the price of oil will drop almost immediately” if the U.S. expands domestic drilling.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • notque, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4If you are a college educated individual who will lie, cheat, and ***** in the support of power, you will be handsomely rewarded, and morally decrepit.
    • axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2First of all what kind of car do you drive? Does it run on your own urine and *****? No, then your morally decrepit to.

      Problem is there is no solution today, tomorrow, or next year to these power sources, and guess what, NEWT is a proponent of researching other forms of energy, there are just none ready to go this second are there? IF you think we don't need oil in the next 10 years than your the one who should get a college education buddy.
      • Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Calm down Newt! I don't think that having a car that runs on piss and ***** makes you morally superior.

        Of course we will need oil. But this isn't about us, it's about Big Oil having more oil to sell. All of the experts who say we'll have oil and cheap gas in as little as a year (ahem FOX) are employed by the oil companies, and they are the ones driving the call for drilling.

        If we had pulled our head out of the sand years ago and stopped listening to the oil people we could have avoided this mess. We would probably be flying to work in our piss and ***** fueled cars.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2I think college educated individuals know how to solve this problem best... Most say drill
      • Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I beg to differ. Politicians and oil company stooges argue for drilling, economists know that it wont matter since it will take years and the oil will be sold on the market like any other oil.

        ***** I quote McCain, "It will have a psychological impact."
  • Insightful, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6Even the Department of Energy is against drilling because both reality and common sense will tell you that offshoring drilling will have no impact until 2030. And a big if at that.

    "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017... Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

    Source:
    "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf"
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr ...
    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy whose mission is to provide policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.
    • richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2How dare you provide sensible evidence that conflicts what my gut tells me about this issue. Everyone knows it's supply and demand right!? *fingers in ears* supply and demand! supply and demand!
      • BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2The runup in oil futures far outpaced supply and demand .... It was based on pure emotion and greed
      • bfb8688, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Is the law of supply and demand no longer in effect?
      • richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"Is the law of supply and demand no longer in effect?"

        Not in its pure form. Supply and demand is simply used as a justification for price manipulation. The various oil providers get together and come up with an arbitrary price. This process is only masked by the fake demand created by massive purchases of oil futures with no intentions to actually use them and the boogeyman of peak oil and other PR efforts that make it appear as though we are running out of oil.
      • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0"The runup in oil futures far outpaced supply and demand .... It was based on pure emotion and greed"

        Yes, a lot of money pouring into futures can temporarily reduce supply and drive up prices. Once the settlement date comes all those people are going to be looking to sell, though, and that increases supply and drives prices back down. Speculators can't have a long term significant impact on prices.
      • chicofaraby, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3"the law of supply and demand"

        There is no such "law." Economics is not arithmetic.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1Insightful is hardly.

        The price of ANY commodity good on the open market has already factored into the price the future availability. Thus, an increase in the future availability will change prices in the present.

        EVERY economist knows this.
    • BigW, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Yeah, God forbid we use any long term thinking to solve this problem that will continue to persist well into the future.

      I wonder what they will say about starting drilling 10 years from now, I know, they'll say it won't have an effect for 10 years. Oh, and what did they say 10 years ago.... the same thing. If we'd have started drilling in ANWR and offshore 10 years ago we would be starting to see effects now.

      • pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1yeah, a whopping 3 pennies 10 years from now.
      • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1...and if we had started drilling in ANWR 30 years ago (when Republicans wanted to) it's estimated that oil would be gone. The oil in ANWR is worth a trillion dollars more today, even after adjusting for inflation. I don't think it's hard to make a case for postponing drilling.
      • richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2What effects are you even talking about? Any oil that we find goes on the world market just like oil found just about anywhere else. The amount of oil we could contribute with what we are sitting on would not have a major impact on the global oil market. What effect do you really think a 10% increase (an extremely generous estimate) in worldwide oil supplies would really have on oil prices?

        No company that deals in crude oil is going to undercut the pricing of other producers; in other words, they don't actually compete. They all come together and ensure the pricing is arbitrarily set to their liking. Regardless of how much supply is actually available, they will be sure to keep pricing high. All they must do is be sure to alter it in ways that prevent major political problems from arising. The people of the world are too stupid and lazy (with a few exceptions) to get off of oil dependency, so OPEC, the OECD, and the other oil cartels will get whatever ransom they demand until these demands are so outrageous that the world reacts; notice the price trends down slightly based on political reaction around the world? We are like the frog that sits contently in a pot of water that is slowly brought to a deadly boil; as long as they adjust in small increments and react to calm political outrage, they can continue to game the world and some people, not understanding the nature of the game, will continue to defend and support their efforts (republican voters).
    • bfb8688, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Common sense gives you the exact year 2030? That's some impressive common sense you have there.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0No one has said drilling is a short term solution but since it takes so long to feel the effects and since we use oil for a lot more than just gas, we should probably start now. This article also left out the important fact that today's oil prices are based on speculation. When drilling is increased the speculation of future oil output, supply, foreign dependency improves causing the price to drop alot sooner than 2030. This phenomenon is the same thing that causes prices to rapidly increase after a hurricane, terrorist attack, or any other event that could be seen effecting the output of oil even though there is no immediate effect. Also what % of people are driving around with poorly inflated tires? less than 10% for sure. What we need is a real solution and if you think inflating your tires is one , you have no business voting

      • MacEnvy, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"This article also left out the important fact that today's oil prices are based on speculation. When drilling is increased the speculation of future oil output, supply, foreign dependency improves causing the price to drop alot sooner than 2030."

        No, it will make no difference. Oil (and the speculators you speak of) work with the worldwide oil market. There is no domestic oil market.

        Since the amount of oil we can get from increased drilling is negligible on the world market, it will have ZERO effect on speculation of global supply. The only thing increased drilling does is cause the oil companies to make more money and hold more leases out of reach of their competition.

        This is a ploy by the oil companies who own the Republican Party, including Senator McCain. Once again they're using their influence over the right and the corporate media to strip the American people of our natural resources to enrich themselves at the detriment of the environment.

        Don't buy into the lie.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -2/+0there is no domestic oil market because we can not drill enough oil. Drilling is the firstt step; and when the world see's the U.S is taking piratical steps to curb our dependency on foreign oil it will have an effect on the global market.
      • richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0kigcoopa: You completely miss the point. There is no domestic oil market because we have not nationalized our resources like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We do not force oil discovered in the US to be sold in the US. There is no domestic market because it is literally not possible to have a domestic market. We could produce enough oil to power the entire world and it would still not be reserved for domestic uses.

        Let me be clear. Oil produced in the United States is not reserved for use by the United States. It is simply poured into the same big pot of world oil. We would then buy the oil the same way we currently do from the same big pot we always have. Same pricing and everything.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -3/+0you have missed the point of energy independence... The government regulates everything else. Put a limit on the amount of domestic oil you can export or put a tax on exportation to make in more appealing to oil companies to keep it in the US, there are ways other than naturalizing our resources. Easy fix
      • richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2Is it the Republicans that you believe will enact these regulations? The Republicans have been on a DEregulation crusade for as long as I can remember. Unless specific limitations on where the oil can go are outlined in the initial lease of the land, the government does not have the power to decide who these companies sell to; no such limitations have been included in the vast area that has already been approved for drilling (the fact that these areas have already been leased and not drilled reveals this entire issue as a pointless one that is meant only to exploit the naivete of much of the electorate).

        Furthermore, the price of the domestically drilled oil would simply match the price of the foreign oil; keeping the domestic oil out of the foreign markets means the additional supply does nothing to reduce global oil prices. This means that your solution still doesn't mean a damned thing.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -2/+0Oil companies permitted to do exploritory drilling, not production drilling. Sorry if Nancy Pelosi failed to mention that.
        And the deregulation of energy has nothing to do with the goverment taxing oil exports more heavily.

      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1don't worry I don't expect a reply.
        "Once again they're using their influence over the right and the corporate media to strip the American people of our natural resources to enrich themselves "
        1. They are only natural resources if we use them as resources.
        2. Shows how crazy and radical you are = complete loss of all credibility.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0No one has said drilling is a short term solution but since it takes so long to feel the effects and since we use oil for a lot more than just gas, we should probably start now. This article also left out the important fact that today's oil prices are based on speculation. When drilling is increased the speculation of future oil output, supply, foreign dependency improves causing the price to drop alot sooner than 2030. This phenomenon is the same thing that causes prices to rapidly increase after a hurricane, terrorist attack, or any other event that could be seen effecting the output of oil even though there is no immediate effect. Also what % of people are driving around with poorly inflated tires? less than 10% for sure. What we need is a real solution and if you think inflating your tires is one , you have no business voting

      • richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1kig: For someone with such a basic and incorrect understanding of the world oil market and apparently energy policy in general you have a lot of balls telling other people that they have no business voting based on being on the "wrong side" of your false premise.
      • Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3Kigcoopa, you scream a lot about "supply and demand" economics and speculation, but then you contradict yourself continually. You "speculate" that if we drill now, all of the sudden "speculators" will see it as a sign of increased supply thereby lowering costs.

        They have a lot of land *already* that hasn't been drilled, hasn't been explored, and it is *right there* in their hands. Why is it an emergency *right this minute* to discuss drilling? Could it be because they want to secure exclusive rights under an administration that is favorable to oil companies?

        A three year old could see through your logic. Please explain to me why you think you have any right to judge anyone's right to vote when you are running on gut-level emotion rather than long term logic.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0First off you would be ignoring most credible economists if you think speculators don't control the market.

        Second these commodity traders are not looking at solely two weeks or even a year ahead, but 10 to 20 years down the road.

        "They have a lot of land *already* that hasn't been drilled," Oil companies are permitted to do exploratory drilling, not production drilling. Sorry if Nancy Pelosi's press release failed to mention that

        In response to your stupid question: "Why is it an emergency *right this minute* to discuss drilling?"
        Because it takes 20 years before we can enjoy the full effect of not completely relying on OPEC nations for our oil!!!!!!!! If you are going out of town do you buy your plane ticket the same day?

        "you are running on gut-level emotion rather than long term logic."
        Wake up bro. Your emotions and hatred for this president have blinded you. I feel sorry that you think everything is just a big conspiracy and all our nations leaders are just screwing you over to help there friends out. If you truly understood "long term logic" we would not be having this conversation. This is why you should not be voting. If you have any more questions I would be happy to answer them.

      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Also you said oil companies have alot of land they have not explored. I am not sure where you get your information (maybe huffinton) but unless you are a top ranking oil executive you would have no way of knowing what land an oil company has explored and how much oil they "think" is on it. These records are kept secret from most employees inside the company... But nice try bro
  • CryRightardCry, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3 – “Obviously, if you do offshore drilling now it’s not going to give any short term help on the supply of oil. … That’s far away.” — Paul A. Samuelson, a professor of economics at MIT and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics.

    – “I have a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons. The reality is there is no correlation between today’s prices and what gasoline will be discovered in the outer shelf.” — Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University

    – “It won’t make any difference whatsoever [on gas prices] because new oil that could be found and produced on the new Outer-Continental Shelf won’t take place for at least eight to 10 years.” — Texas A&M Economics Professor Dr. John Moroney

    – “Drilling in the Gulf starting today is not going to give us any relief this year, next year or the year after.” — Tom Oberhofer, an economist at Eckerd College in Pinellas County

    – “It’s absurd to argue that ending the moratorium on drilling off parts of the U.S. coasts would quickly bring down the high price of gasoline.” — John Berry, Bloomberg columnist

    – “Would starting to drill now do anything for consumers in the near future? The answer to this one…is probably not, since it’ll take so long for new oil or gas to come to market.” — Ken Green, an energy analyst with the American Enterprise Institute.

    – “Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today.” — Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington
    • stevetrojanman, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0So, yeah...let's not drill at all...lord knows we'll need less oil 5 years from now than we do today. This line of thinking makes no sense...Don't drill now because it won't help immediately, yet if prices are higher in 5 years for whatever reason, we still won't have a solution because we didn't drill now.

      It's the same logic that is telling our government leaders that we can't expand highway infrastructure now because it's so expensive. Is it going to be cheaper in 10 years? 20 years? Are they planning on less demand for highways in 10-20 years? Makes no sense.

      I have no problem if they're telling me that the aim is to switch to alternative energy over the next 10-20 years, but there's no need to kill everyone's pocketbook in the meantime. The "green" movement has already gotten going to the point that the switch will be made regardless of whether oil is at $120 a barrel or $80 a barrel. There's no problem with ensuring that we don't have supply problems in the future and that we don't have to rely primarily on foreign countries for the supply. What is the harm in having the infrastructure for that supply 5 years from now in case there are snags along the way in developing our "green" technology?
      • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0"here's no problem with ensuring that we don't have supply problems in the future and that we don't have to rely primarily on foreign countries for the supply."

        Domestic drilling isn't going to have a drastic impact on the amount we import, especially as there is no guarantee oil produced will be sold domestically.
    • scrtyfrk, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0The problem is that there's ONLY one Nobel prize winner in the bunch. Get two of them and they might put a committee together to investigate the possibility that drilling might not work as soon as expected.
    • Lamadave222, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Use people who speak English....only "Dr." Aljihadi expects to find "gasoline" on the Outer shelf. Let's see...most academia is leftist therefore we should believe what they say about economics. If not for the EcoNazis the oil from the outer shelf would already be drilled and available. Btw..what the intern found was that "every" economist knows that even the suggestion of future supply is enough to change the direction of price speculation in a commodity. Those who agree that there is no effect are as ignorant as Barack "its only 30 cents a gallon" Obama. If you drive for a living, particularly a truck, it ain't chump change. And anyone who has a pension or retirement fund is adversely affected by oil prices that have been driven up by speculation. If it won't have any effect, why are the Chinese getting ready to drill off the Florida coast...hmm?
  • pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+02030 is "almost immediately?
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0When a hurricane hits the gulf does are oil supply drop instantly?
      • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0No, prices increase overnight, because there is an expected significant and temporary disruption in our fuel supply. Domestic drilling isn't going to have any significant impact on worldwide oil production, so announcing drilling might have an immediate impact but it will be insignificant.

        At best you could hope the news would puncture an oil price bubble (if such a bubble exists) but that would happen eventually anyway.
  • kidjesus, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Completely off topic, but how much longer are we going to have to look at that incredibly stupid "Mo Wants to Know" ad that's been littering the front page for months? I'm sick of it, and its eternal presence ensures that I will never give Bank of America any business.

    On topic, Gingrich is a liar, everyone knows that. As a result, it pays to ignore everything the little toad says. He and Mo Rocca should team up together for some "hip and edgy" Bank of America ads.
    • Sicarius, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Dude. Get Firefox and Adblock already. Eventually you will become so used to having no ads that the very occasional one that slips though is a novelty.
    • SquigglyP, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Don't give Bank of America any business anyway. They're one of the most despicable banking institutions out there. I was a customer of theirs for two years, and over the course of that two years they stole at least a few hundred bucks from me. I closed my account and then a year later they sent me a statement claiming my account was a couple hundred bucks in the hole - all of it due to their service charges and overdraft fees from the service charges - after they had told me my account was closed. I spent a month bitching with them, they eventually removed that balance and claimed to have closed the account again. About six months later I got ANOTHER statement claiming I owed them money for service charges and overdraft fees.

      They do the same ***** Sprint does, preying on people and hoping they're stupid enough to pay their little extortion charges to preserve your credit report. I had to threaten legal action before they decided to actually close the account.
  • wizbor, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Uh-oh, they discovered oil on Saturn's moon Titan (http://www.newser.com/story/19066/want-oil-try-sat ... better pass a law quick so big oil wont ruin that too.
    We are a carbon based life forms you fools.
    • jellygraph, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Since there is no button to throw rotten tomatoes at idiot posters, instead I resort to simply digging you down and blocking you. Digg, do something about it!
  • diabolicedict, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1I can't believe that turd is still getting some air time.
  • SailingAlien, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2We aren't going to solve the energy crisis by inflating our tires. We need more energy regardless of the timeframe or technology. The energy can come from oil, nuclear, wind or whatever it takes. Simply bashing oil because of high prices is ignorant and childish. High prices are a result of energy demand. It's that simple. Increase the energy options though more oil more nuclear power plants or more windmills and you ease the pricing pressure.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Demand is one factor but what about the failing dollar effect?
    • SpinningHead, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0We are bashing oil because they dictated US oil policy for the past 8 years and we have sacrificed blood and treasure to secure oil contracts in Iraq that had previously gone to European oil companies. While we talk about simply drilling more oil, the rest of the 1st world countries are investing in renewables and securing the patents on the technology that will be used in the future. Its amazing that these "let the market decide" conservatives mock steps that would lower demand rather than drilling more oil. These same conservatives deregulated oil speculation which has driven up prices even while there has been a measured fall in demand over the past year.
    • ender7074, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1OMG thats logic. Cant have that here on digg. You just get to repeat the liberal mantra around here. There's no room for anything else.
  • LoneRanger85, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2I'm sure the reason the price of gas has dropped 25 cents in the last few weeks is that Nancy Pelosi is blocking all debate and a vote on drilling. Yeah, that's how it works.
    • pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2or maybe because americans drove 9.6 billion less miles in May compared to a year earlier:

      http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/drivi ...
      • BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2We have a winner. If it really is supply and demand, you can increase supply or reduce demand. Americans took action by themselves (thanks for nothing congress!!) and drove less. This, in addition that the spike in oil prices was a bubble, created the situation where the price couldn't hold. You can't keep raising prices while the stockpiles of gas keep rising at the refinery.
    • axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1You win the award for smartest comment so far on this article.
  • rarefied, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Opening up drilling would produce near-term changes in the price of oil. By increasing the supply of oil in the future holders of oil today would be more willing to give up smaller future profits for current profits. This story elaborates:
    http://mises.org/story/3047
    • stevetrojanman, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1This will no doubt be debunked by some other thinkprogress, huffpo, or rawstory article...

      Sometimes, it's not worth the effort in trying to argue
      • BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2If by debunked, you mean shouted down, well then, you are correct.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2by all means try to shoot it down with something more than "everyone but people who think like me are wrong and evil" It is simple economics buddy have you taken that class?
      • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1The real issue isn't whether announcing drilling will have an immediate impact (it would); the issue is whether it will have a *signficant* impact. The problem is that increasing worldwide oil output by 2% isn't going to have a noticeable impact now or in the future.

        @rarefied: If you follow your link through and read the original research paper you'll find their calculations used a 20% increase in production of oil, 10x what is possible based on domestic drilling.
    • LukasSmith, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2You have a great argument. Unfortunatly you are in Emo territory. These Emos believe in a dark world where all is evil and trying to destroy them. You will never convince them there could be any good in drilling for oil. Plus most are partisan as *****. I would say most Republicans have better things to do then be here watching Democrats masturbate themselves with articles like this. We vote in the real world too. Since most Republicans appear to live in the real world I doubt Democrats can win.
    • JigoroKano, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0The oil futures market doesn't operate on a time scale that is nearly long enough to have any effect from this.
      • stevetrojanman, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Umm...someone doesn't read the news...

        Oil contracts can be traded up to something like 8 years out on NYMEX...
        There was a story about 2 months ago that were about the trading prices of 2016 futures contracts hitting $150 a barrel. So yes, the oil futures market does operate on a long term basis.

        http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d821c5aa-f387-11dc-b6bc- ...
        This is not the $150/barrel article...but it makes the point.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1That doesn't matter, while you have an actual argument, I have five figures of authority with no arguments telling me that's wrong and I use guilt by association to know that people making these arguments are wrong, despite the validity of their arguments, because some ***** blog told me to.

      It's an election year! Everybody put on a helmet!
    • timoumd, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0See I disagree with the drilling. You see there will be WAY less oil in 20 years. And WAY WAY less in 40. I say we hold out. Prices can only go up. Silly Arabs and Mexicans, selling a fixed resource at such a low cost for so long...I want the most for our offshore oil.
      • d2drake, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Don't feel bad, a lot of people have the same misunderstanding that you have on this issue. Untapped oil quantities are always estimated taking into consideration the current economic and technology situation. With today's technology some oil is there but won't pay for itself to get. As technologies improve and/or prices go up, that oil then becomes part of the estimate. Also, all of the oil deposit have yet been discovered. And lastly, nature did just quit making oil at a certain time - the process hasn't stopped.
      • timoumd, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0What the deuce are you talking about? Are you saying it will cost more to get the oil than we will make from it? You better have some good evidence for that! And last I checked nature hasnt stopped making oil, but Im not planning on waiting a few hundred million years for it...

        Either way, the longer we wait as technology gets better and prices go up, the value of that oil goes up, and I want to sell high.
  • Splicernyc, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Newt Gingrich is probably one of the most self-serving of loud mouths in the neocon cult. Whenever this man says anything, the first thing I think is that it's something to puff himself up and the second is that it's a lie.
    • p51d007, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Actually, I thought you were one of the most self-serving loud mouths on the looney left.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1well his comment proved that
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Why won't the politicians talk about the devalued dollar? That is surely the biggest factor in oil prices in terms of USDollars. I think I know a good answer. Can anyone guess what it is?
  • BufordT, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0“understands more more about economics than most of the politicians in this country.”

    That's saying a lot now isn't it?
    • ender7074, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Not really. Politicans are the lowest common denominator. Their expertice falls in lying, cheating, and robbing the American public blind. They know little to nothing about economics except that taxes are a big part of it.
  • listenthentalk, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's the refineries stupid. Their output is manipulated to achieve maximum profit. Drill all you want. The price of gas will never come down.
    • ender7074, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1You obviously have no concept of suppl.y and demand. It's ok. You libs live in your own insane world anyway.
      • SpinningHead, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0And you obviously don't understand the complexities of the market. This is not simply supply and demand. Weve seen prices rising over the past year as demand fell. This is largely due to the brilliant conservative plan to deregulate trading of oil futures. That said, how can the same people who tout the supply and demand model mock things like raising cafe standards and increasing efficiency (eg. proper tire inflation)? There's a whiff of logical dissonance in the air.
    • xcspyder, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0listenthentalk,
      who spoon feed you that load of crap.
  • wynja, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Well duh, but it won't be because the drilling will do us any good. It'll be because the speculators start screaming SELL SELL SELL!!! and prices will immediately drop in response to the knee jerk reaction. Oh, and the prices will go right back up with the next hurricane this season too.
    • ontain, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0tighter regulation of the energy markets could do the same thing without environmental damage.
      • wynja, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Look, we're going to need the oil at some point. you can't just wish oil away. It's the foundation of everything modern. The key here is to start limiting it's use which should be part of the regulation that opens up some more drilling. There is no reason we can't drill more domestic oil and tighten regulation of the energy markets.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0It will go up with the next hurricane due to speculation; the same thing that will drop the price when we start drilling
  • vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1***** Thinkprogress. And I say we test the moron leftists theory and drill. If the price goes down, they're wrong. If the price stays the same or goes up, we can stop.

    Deal?
    • MadKennyP, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1What a stupid idea. "Let's do major harm to the environment. If it doesn't work, we'll stop, but the harm will have been done."

      Moron.
  • stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Since the price of oil is so sensitive to even the slightest amount of jawboning from anyone even loosely connected with the market, I think he's probably right.

    Regardless, there's no reason not to drill new wells offshore. It will *reduce* the risk of oil spills (by merit of being closer) and active oil rigs are a boon to the local fish life.
  • Rotzooi, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0"Let's not consider alternatives to fossil fuel AT ALL"
    Sincerely,
    The Digg Republicans
    • vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Wrong, dick. ALL OF THE ABOVE. Get it? Do ALL of the above.
      • lonesomewolf, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0I like my mid sized SUV. And it sucks when I am going to have to get a much smaller vehicle in a year or two. But that's just life and I accept that.

        But drilling and maybe making gas cheaper is going to get us on alternative fuels, when? Later after that new domestic source runs out? And when that source runs out what are we going to use - shale rock? And the extraction of shale oil will create an environmental disaster. All this because we have hoping we have just enough world oil to keep gas reasonably cheap before we die and pass this "as someone else's problem?" I mean if I only live another 40 years who cares, right? And that seems to be the attitude which is kind of hard to take really.

    • stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Making caricatures of the right does not excuse the fallacies of the left.
    • rarefied, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Freedom Pro-tip #683: if you have to use force to get others to come around to your ideas, then your ideas are not good ones.
      • Rotzooi, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0So you think running out of fuel is a GREAT plan? Are you three years old? My nephew thinks it is a really bad idea to eat anything but candy. Still, I am forcing him. Because a diet of all candy will slowly kill him. This makes me an enemy of freedom? You have issues.
  • p51d007, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Of course, if Algore, or some other "liberal" were to say the same thing, the libs here on digg would be proclaiming it gospel.
    • axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Isn't that the truth
    • SpinningHead, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Yeah, cause people who supported Bush are experts on truth. No more faith-based politics, please.
  • stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1The number one fact of economics that politicians need to understand is the law of unintended consequences. Government intervention into the market, whether to stop offshore drilling or to regulate, tax or subsidize it, will inevitably lead to bad consequences. Frequently those consequences will be the exact opposite of the intended goal.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0But smart people like you only get one vote.
      • bfb8688, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0And unfortunately, there are only about a million or so others who think like him.
    • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Right, because big corporations like say..... banks, never make bad decisions without regulation.
      • stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Of course they can make bad decisions apart from regulation. But the bad decisions that financed a housing bubble were encouraged (not "caused," before you start stuffing words into my mouth again) by GSOs like Fannie and Freddie who could buy artificially large amounts of mortgages at artificially low rates.

        Even worse is the government's attempts to bail them out. Fannie and Freddie should have to participate in the market without special federal crutches, so that their managers and the managers of their customer banks do not suffer from the blurred vision that comes when they are protected from the consequences of their actions.

        Government's intervention into the market may have short-term effects that many people like, but it only blurs the market data that helps businesses learn from their mistakes. Knowing that there's a "plunge protection team" that won't allow the stock market to fall is going to drastically change the amount of risk you think you're willing to take in the market. But when the government's promises fall flat, it is you who will be left holding the bag.
  • buddywlkr3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0It is amazing to me that people who profess such knowledge can keep spouting the Democratic party lines about drilling. Does anyone really believe that we can stop using oil and rely on wind power and solar energy? Those schemes would provide 20% of our energy needs at best IN 20 YEARS and will TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS invested. Drilling offshore, where we have proven oil reserves, could yield oil within a year or two. The US has more oil than does Saudi Arabia if we will just tap it. McCain is pushing oil drilling, nuclear power, and investment in other renewable energy sources, but most people realize that renewable energy is a long term gamble.
    • the6thReplicant, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0It will run out eventually, so why not try replacing it ASAP.

      Also oil is really important for a lot of chemical processes and THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE. But what do we do with this amazing substance: we burn it to go from A to B.
      • axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Yea but no one is saying DON"T REPLACE OIL. They are saying lets do BOTH. So is Newt. Another detail this article seems to leave out. He is pushing off shore drilling, AND further research into other sources of energy. I hate this partisan *****
      • SpinningHead, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Bush also said "lets do both" to get elected. Then he cut renewable funding and poured all our money into the oil industry and even a war to secure them more contracts.
    • SpinningHead, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0That's a straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting instant abandonment of all other energy. We are not closing refineries. We are talking about reducing demand and shifting our energy portfolio in other directions.
  • centryfox, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0thinkprogress.org
  • ginarnold, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I wonder if Gingrich thinks if we build more houses it will solve the housing problem?
    • stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Captain NonSequitur is here to save the day!
    • IPublius, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Is this why liberals are against drilling? Are you really this clueless?

      There is not a shortage of houses driving the prices up. There is an abundance driving the prices down. There is not enough oil so prices are up. More houses would drive the housing market down farther. More oil would drive the oil prices down.

      Dems are against drilling for some insane reason, but then they want to be free of foreign oil. Which is it? If we had started drilling ten years ago when the right wanted to and the left stopped them, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. In ten years we will probably still have the Dems refusing to let us drill because it won't do any good for at least ten years.
      • jeremyswenson, on 08/07/2008, -0/+020 years from now we might be able to get 1% of our oil from drilling in the bay. Assuming that the speculation work on reserves there that the Republicans use is accurate. Though there is a long standing trend of the oil companies saying they want rights somewhere and getting the Republicans to make ridiculous promises to the people about how much it would help... and then the oil companies say "Oops, not enough oil there to make drilling worth it, but how about over here.."

        And that isn't even mentioning the fact that this oil doesn't just magically go to us. Any impact it has will essentially be split economically across every oil buying outlet in the world.
    • BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0The housing problem isn't about building more houses its about printing more money, and they're already doing that.
    • xcspyder, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0You have shown your complete ignorance to how money and markets work.
  • DeFex, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1I used to have a pet salamander.

    I called him tiny.

    Because he was my newt.
  • chicofaraby, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2An intern's research? That sounds like the American Right Wing ***** Factory Enterprise Institute has upped it's game recently.
    • pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1reminds me of the evidence we used to invade iraq, plagiarized from a student's paper.
  • imightbewrong, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1So we can blame speculators for increasing oil prices today, but we can't give them a reason to speculate that prices will decrease in the future as supply increases, so speculation will lower oil prices?
    • vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Pretty dumb, isn't it? Welcome to the mind of the far left moonbat. It's a scary place.
    • pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0since drilling now won't bring a new oil to the world market for decades, why would speculators lower prices now?
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Holy *****. Did you just ask that question? Do you know how commodities are traded?
      • rarefied, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0"why would speculators lower prices now?"

        Because they won't be able to get as much money for their oil in the future if they have to hold on to it LDO.
  • dupswapdrop, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0I think we need to id these so called speculators and hang them!
  • johnj21, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1This "not going to see effects of drilling for 10 years" argument is stupid. By the same logic, I am not going to send my children to elementary school because it will take them about 15 years to get a career out of it.
  • axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Yea see the problem with this is Newt is actually correct.

    What this article fails to mention is that the price of oil by the barrel is set on two factors, the value of the dollar (which we know isn't all that great) and also the PROJECTED SUPPLY OF OIL. If we start off shore drilling, barrel prices will go down immediately the DAY they strike oil because it will change the projected supply. Now, that doesn't mean it would effect you at the pump that day, but it would within a few weeks.

    I love how articles leave out facts just to prove their parts. Wake up *****, Partisan politics is killing this country. Both you Obama and McCain nut huggers need to wake up and start reading facts instead of picking sides.
    • pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0since speculation is a large part of the problem, why not close the enron loophole?
    • LunaticFringe, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Actually, the price only goes down if the speculators feel there is a reasonable amount of oil being added. If you add 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 10 sources, it won't do a damn thing. The trickle has to become a river before it'll convince anyone.

      The way of life that America and the rest of the world enjoyed in the past is dead. Breaking our dependence on oil we can emerge into a new age of prosperity, but only if we're willing to endure the momentary hardships and adapt to the changing environment. For that is a feature of existence that not even humans can evade. In life you can adapt, or you can die. With proper investment in alternative sources of energy, we can expand on solar, wind, and nuclear energy to make up for what fearmongers prevented in the past. If nuclear energy had not been turned into a threat and a potential public health risk by the backwards politicians of Washington, we probably wouldn't be where we are.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Hey dumbass, there's also a consideration made to where the oil is coming from.

        If more oil comes from stable sources (i.e. our own) vs oil from potentially unstable sources (i.e. the middle east) it makes a big difference.

        Secondly, since we are and will continue to invest in alternate fuels, that means that we'll need less and the ratio of oil from stable sources to oil from unstable sources is evened out even more and the perceived risk is lower.

        All that means LOWER oil prices.
      • axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Well that's an interesting point Niche, but we are talking about a reasonable amount of oil being added. The projected amount is 3 times more than is produced overseas. It would literally be trippling the projected amount of oil we are talking about here. It is a river.

        Now these are naturally projections...but even the possibility would drop oil prices faster than your saying.

        But again...MOSTLY EVERYONE, both sides, both parties are all for finding new sources of energy. It's just we can't depend on anything you mention, solar, wind, nuclear for YEARS and YEARS from now independantly from OIL, so i don't see how NOT drilling is going to do anything but put is in an economic strangle hold with oil prices for 35 years to come.
      • EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0@axpdocbrown

        Do you have a citation for your "river" of oil? Every legitimate estimate I've seen from government and private sector has shown drilling on federal lands and offshore would increase worldwide oil production by ~2%.
  • perot9296, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0America just needs to ride this out and finally work on alternatives. Otherwise will be in Iraq and Iran for another 100yrs like McCain wants to be.
  • lonesomewolf, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's like giving telling a junkie, I will reduce the cost of your foreign crack (oil) in hopes you will find a more expensive domestic alternative substance to abuse that still get's you high but doesn't destroy your body as quickly. And the so called "bridge" theory of drilling now and then "doing some research in the future" hasn't panned out even from the first oil crisis in 1972 when people were in lines at gas stations. So, say for argument sake we drill tomorrow and gas goes down to $1/gallon. What then? As long as there is a relatively cheap supply of oil then alternatives are not going to be viable and therefore people will not change their habits. The "pro-oil" camp will say "now that Americans are no longer hurting we can invest in alternative energies." Unfortunately, this strategy has been used by previous administrations and has always failed. People do not plan for the future they plan for tomorrow morning. And if gas is not $4/gallon tomorrow morning they think of other things that are important to them like heath care, food supply, education, etc.

    There are only really two ways to change people's habits and keep oil prices on people's mind as well as create long term viable alternatives. One is to hit them in the wallet where it really hurts and the other to enforce policy (e.g. laws). Without the pain there is no change.
    • xcspyder, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1That is a very well thought out post and argument. But I will never agree to that and that kind of thinking scares me. Why? Because it is saying that government needs to control people's habits. That is most definitely a socialist policy. Very scary and what America was not founded on. I personally would like to live freely and not have government control what I buy, eat, and do with my time.
  • banderwocky, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Gingrich likes interns.In the wrong way.
    • GreatSunJester, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Bill Clinton likes interns.In the wrong way. There, fixed that for you!
      :)
  • dadavexx, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Isn't it wonderful that Faux Knews brings such pearls of wisdom from the crew of swine that they feed !
  • Splicernyc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Kool Aid drinkers.
  • TheRhinoceros, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1It's not surprising that Gingrich and the Bush "Pioneers" have teamed up to fight for corporate profits at the expense of a point not well made by the man, that is drilling ANWR and on the continental shelf will really help the American oil situation. It won't, not for years. And what percentage of the ANWR and the C.S. oil would stay with America anyway? It's not like it would automatically be earmarked "for American use only". A portion of it would go overseas, a fairly large portion.

    What these meat-heads fail to realize is that we are addicted to oil and giving us more is only going to make things worse in the long run. We need to create cars that run on other fuels and are relatively inexpensive as quickly as possible, and retool plants around the nation to do so. This will create millions of jobs and help the economy, and without the burning of fossil fuels we also help our environment.

    I remember that rat bastard Gingrich and his Failed "Contract on America" I didn't buy his ***** then, and I ain't buying it now.

    that's my two cents.

    http://election-coverage.com
  • amightywind, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1If you back Picken's Plan, which is pretty marginal in my mind, you will have to support massive new drilling for natural gas. The cowardly democrats have ducked the issue for the moment. Pelosi is off 'saving the planet' I suppose. Wait until the poor on the east coast call for a heating oil delivery and find that their bill has doubled! This issue ain't going anywhere. Obama's advice of 'keeping our tires properly inflated' is laughably inadequate. In the end we will drill ANWR.
    • Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Yeah, those cowardly people that actually want a long-term solution rather than a knee jerk reaction.

      What are you, twelve?
      • amightywind, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Then please, share your plan with us. It is not enough to say you want to change. What is your technological solution that middle and lower earning people can accept? Lollipops and moonbeams don't count!
      • Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Invest in electricity as a power source. Electricity can be generated by solar, by wind, by nuclear, by biodegradables, and phase conversion. If we make moves towards vehicles that use electricity exclusively, and there are vehicles today that do so, then power can come from *many* sources, not just a single thing we are dependent upon.

        Of course, that would help the situation. It also could in a far-fetched way include moonbeams, since the moon reflects solar energy, and lollipops contain sucrose which can also be converted to ethanol.

        No, let's not switch to electricity, let's use gasoline since there is one form of energy we are currently dependent on when using it.
      • Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Oh, and by the way, do you know who the Picken's plan is detrimental to? People that control oil.

        Who does it help? People that wish to become less dependent on oil, the environment, the economy because we wouldn't be throwing out money hand over fist to oil backers, and the public.

        Follow the money trail, and you will easily find the motives for those against Picken's plan and any plan that includes reduced dependency on oil.

        Your argument is More Oil! More Oil! but that won't last forever, and a lot of other peole have a plan of Less Oil! Less Oil!

        Which one makes more sense?
  • ronmat, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Give your self a new perspective!
    http://www.FreeViral.com/?r=220048
  • Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It would be one thing if I found in this whole argument for drilling that they wanted to do it to enrich themselves. The problem here is that they want to enrich themselves, at the expense of *others*, to the detriment of *others* along with making themselves richer.

    That is what I have a huge problem with, and lately, that seems to be all the Republican party does anymore - harm others to help themselves, instead of just trying to help in this world.

    Why is it that every position you people take means someone else has to be harmed for your betterment? Are you too stupid to do the right things without taking a shortcut to do the wrong ones?
  • BubblegumTate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0We posted ringtone-ready audio from this interview over at Entertonement: http://entertonement.com/clips?keywords=newt+gingr ...
  • buddywlkr3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2What is that all of the energy plan solutions from Obama and the Democrats have in common? None of them increase the supply of energy. They want higher taxes on oil companies, new restrictions on oil commodity markets, forcing oil companies to drill where there is no oil, releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, free money for everybody, increased fuel efficiency mandates, increased infrastructure spending, government investments in electric cars, etc. All of these "solutions" increase spending and big Government, but none of them increase the supply. Gingrich and McCain call for increased supply and all of the loyal Obama followers want to smear Gingrich and McCain as they goose step their way over the cliff.
  • Lamadave222, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1The real reason Obama opposes drilling is that not drilling increases the revenues of certain Middle Eastern nations, many of which are lead by either Muslims and/or Arabs. Given that Barack is an apostate Muslim, that two of his "fathers" were Muslim (one was Arab), that his half brother is a socialist, Islamic radical who wishes to be part of the cabal to rule Kenya and the fact that Obama can't seem to tell the truth, why doubt it. Obama is the Meccan candidate and though he may deny his heritage, according to the Qu'ran he is considered a Muslim and an apostate at that. How is he going to negotiate with fundamentalist regimes? More importantly, does he really want to?
    • 140Suffolk, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1And of all the "Christian" churches in black Chicago, Obama has to find the one that considers Louis Farrakhan a hero.
  • kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0.
  • lilredsammy, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's not going to help us now but we should still use what we have available. In a perfect world all power would be solar or wind power, but its not.
  • 140Suffolk, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Here's a question: if there was a headline saying that Iran had closed the Straits of Hormuz, where most oil goes through, would the price of oil immediately go up? Of course.
    So if there's news that the USA has decided to take of the handcuffs and, as fast as possible, start drilling for oil in our own backyard, would the price immediately start down? OF COURSE !!

    Solar doesn't work. Wind doesn't work. If we don't start drilling we're going to be broke and cold sitting in the dark. While China and India laugh.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.