PDA

View Full Version : That darn OBAMA is making my gas prices go up....right?



pghin08
03-20-2012, 03:56 PM
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2109474,00.html

Or, wrong.

AUTaxMan
03-20-2012, 04:25 PM
There are definitely some misleading facts in that article, which is nothing more than a puff piece to make Obama look like he cares about the price of gasoline.

First, the article praises the fuel efficiency standards put in place on newly manufactured vehicles as a way of decreasing demand and thus decreasing the price of oil. However, the costs associated with complying with those standards essentially cannot be met unless manufacturers move away from gasoline as a primary source of power. This means lighter, less safe vehicles that do not have the range that most people need. It will also drive up the cost of electricity (created by coal-fired power plants, btw). Thus, you will be forcing people to buy cars they don't want and are less safe so that Washington democrats can feel good about saving the planet, while at the same time having little effect on the world demand for oil (you think China and India are going green?) and necessarily jacking up our power bills.

Second, Obama gets ZERO credit for any success on the home-front in the area of domestic oil production. Production is up because of activity on private land over which Obama has no control to lease or not lease, only to increasingly regulate.

More oil rigs working in the US than the rest of the world combined? That has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

U.S. oil company profits have nothing to do with Obama.

Federal offshore drilling moratorium is Obama's fault and is NOT justified by the BP spill. Are there deepwater oil spills happening all over the rest of the world? No. They are using the spill as a reason to stall the execution of new leases.

The goal of the President is to do what he can to increase the price of gasoline so that it economically justifies his alternative energy projects like wind and solar, which are way too expensive and inefficient to be practical at this time. This is a documented fact, stated by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu a few years ago. Chu is publicly backtracking on his comments, but the policy is quite clear.

The bottom line is that Obama really has no energy policy. His prior policy, to line the pockets of his donors by way of government financing their green energy projects, is coming to an end, and he really has no intention of increasing domestic oil production.

The American Petroleum Institute says we could be energy independent in 30 years if we maximized our rich natural resources. Unfortunately, which leadership like Obama in the WH, that will never happen.

shrewsbury
03-20-2012, 04:41 PM
has to be bush

DunkingDurant35
03-20-2012, 05:18 PM
Neither Obama nor Bush, sub-par presidents though they may be, are to be blamed for gas prices. People often forget that there are factors outside the presidency that affect citizens as well.

pghin08
03-20-2012, 05:19 PM
There are definitely some misleading facts in that article, which is nothing more than a puff piece to make Obama look like he cares about the price of gasoline.

First, the article praises the fuel efficiency standards put in place on newly manufactured vehicles as a way of decreasing demand and thus decreasing the price of oil. However, the costs associated with complying with those standards essentially cannot be met unless manufacturers move away from gasoline as a primary source of power. This means lighter, less safe vehicles that do not have the range that most people need. It will also drive up the cost of electricity (created by coal-fired power plants, btw). Thus, you will be forcing people to buy cars they don't want and are less safe so that Washington democrats can feel good about saving the planet, while at the same time having little effect on the world demand for oil (you think China and India are going green?) and necessarily jacking up our power bills.

Second, Obama gets ZERO credit for any success on the home-front in the area of domestic oil production. Production is up because of activity on private land over which Obama has no control to lease or not lease, only to increasingly regulate.

More oil rigs working in the US than the rest of the world combined? That has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

U.S. oil company profits have nothing to do with Obama.

Federal offshore drilling moratorium is Obama's fault and is NOT justified by the BP spill. Are there deepwater oil spills happening all over the rest of the world? No. They are using the spill as a reason to stall the execution of new leases.

The goal of the President is to do what he can to increase the price of gasoline so that it economically justifies his alternative energy projects like wind and solar, which are way too expensive and inefficient to be practical at this time. This is a documented fact, stated by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu a few years ago. Chu is publicly backtracking on his comments, but the policy is quite clear.

The bottom line is that Obama really has no energy policy. His prior policy, to line the pockets of his donors by way of government financing their green energy projects, is coming to an end, and he really has no intention of increasing domestic oil production.

The American Petroleum Institute says we could be energy independent in 30 years if we maximized our rich natural resources. Unfortunately, which leadership like Obama in the WH, that will never happen.


You just proved my point. Gas prices (whether they're high or low), have almost NOTHING to do with whoever is President.

Edit: I get the feeling you wouldn't say these things if someone were talking about Bush. How come something is a "puff piece" when it surrounds someone you dislike, but articles that come out which are critical of Obama are bastions of truth? I agree that Obama is not solely responsible for pushing America towards energy independence, but your reaction to this strikes me as a typical "anti-party-in-power response" (like I saw so many Dems do to President Bush), that no matter what, the person in power can do no right, simply because you don't like him.

DunkingDurant35
03-20-2012, 05:19 PM
Beat you by a minute...lol.

duane1969
03-20-2012, 05:25 PM
I do not blame Obama for gas prices going up. However, I blame him for shoving his hands in his pockets and ignoring the problem.

And like it or not, if gas prices stay this high or go higher it won't matter who the Republican candidate is, Obama will find it very, very hard to win.

*censored*
03-20-2012, 05:28 PM
WHAT?!

The president isn't the be-all and end-all of every single thing in the country?

Color me shocked!

DaClyde
03-20-2012, 05:32 PM
I don't see how Obama doesn't cruise into a second term. It will be 1996 all over again as the GOP is putting a placeholder up against the President. While Dole didn't stand a chance of being elected, Obama doesn't even need Clinton's popularity to beat Romney, all he needs to do is run a minimal campaign and let Romney bury himself by opening his mouth.

But neither have anything to do with the price of gas. Politicians only talk about the price of gas, they never do anything about it. Especially not within a time frame that has any relevance to their discussions.

AUTaxMan
03-20-2012, 06:06 PM
Our nation's becoming more energy independent would certainly lead to greater world supplies and curb the fears of speculators which drive the price up. Also, his terrible monetary policy that has weakened the dollar also affects the price. Finally, the regulatory costs he has put in place are only passed along to consumers, again increasing gas prices. So, yes, the President can have a small short-term and substantial long-term effects on the price of oil and thus gasoline.

AUTaxMan
03-20-2012, 06:08 PM
You just proved my point. Gas prices (whether they're high or low), have almost NOTHING to do with whoever is President.

Edit: I get the feeling you wouldn't say these things if someone were talking about Bush. How come something is a "puff piece" when it surrounds someone you dislike, but articles that come out which are critical of Obama are bastions of truth? I agree that Obama is not solely responsible for pushing America towards energy independence, but your reaction to this strikes me as a typical "anti-party-in-power response" (like I saw so many Dems do to President Bush), that no matter what, the person in power can do no right, simply because you don't like him.

It's definitely a puff piece, because it is so little rooted in fact.

pghin08
03-20-2012, 06:10 PM
Our nation's becoming more energy independent would certainly lead to greater world supplies and curb the fears of speculators which drive the price up. Also, his terrible monetary policy that has weakened the dollar also affects the price. Finally, the regulatory costs he has put in place are only passed along to consumers, again increasing gas prices. So, yes, the President can have a small short-term and substantial long-term effects on the price of oil and thus gasoline.

So what does your de-regulated world look like?

Wickabee
03-20-2012, 09:47 PM
I get the feeling you wouldn't say these things if someone were talking about Bush. How come something is a "puff piece" when it surrounds someone you dislike, but articles that come out which are critical of Obama are bastions of truth?
Very interesting question, but I think you answered it yourself here:


no matter what, the person in power can do no right, simply because you don't like him.

mrveggieman
03-21-2012, 09:24 AM
You just proved my point. Gas prices (whether they're high or low), have almost NOTHING to do with whoever is President.

Edit: I get the feeling you wouldn't say these things if someone were talking about Bush. How come something is a "puff piece" when it surrounds someone you dislike, but articles that come out which are critical of Obama are bastions of truth? I agree that Obama is not solely responsible for pushing America towards energy independence, but your reaction to this strikes me as a typical "anti-party-in-power response" (like I saw so many Dems do to President Bush), that no matter what, the person in power can do no right, simply because you don't like him.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

AUTaxMan
03-21-2012, 12:11 PM
So what does your de-regulated world look like?

It pretty much looks the same, except it takes a lot less time and money to acquire environmental permits from the EPA and doesn't require the construction of processing plants that costs tens of millions of dollars to reduce harmless levels of toxic chemicals to harmless levels of greater degree. It factors weighing the benefits of regulatory compliance against the costs (something prohibited by law).

pghin08
03-21-2012, 12:18 PM
It pretty much looks the same, except it takes a lot less time and money to acquire environmental permits from the EPA and doesn't require the construction of processing plants that costs tens of millions of dollars to reduce harmless levels of toxic chemicals to harmless levels of greater degree. It factors weighing the benefits of regulatory compliance against the costs (something prohibited by law).

But you're assuming "harmless levels of toxic chemicals". In an unregulated environment, what's to stop a company from harvesting energy in an environmentally irresponsible way so long as it helps their bottom line. We saw what "toxicity" could be concocted in a lackadaisically regulated bond market, why couldn't the same be said for this?

*censored*
03-21-2012, 12:56 PM
Also, his terrible monetary policy that has weakened the dollar also affects the price.

You mean our HISTORY of terrible monetary policy?

http://mises.org/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg


My apologies for the huge picture.

Star_Cards
03-21-2012, 01:48 PM
^ Huge Photo of the Year!!! lock it up!!!

AUTaxMan
03-21-2012, 05:07 PM
But you're assuming "harmless levels of toxic chemicals". In an unregulated environment, what's to stop a company from harvesting energy in an environmentally irresponsible way so long as it helps their bottom line. We saw what "toxicity" could be concocted in a lackadaisically regulated bond market, why couldn't the same be said for this?

I am not saying that there needs to be NO regulation. That would be ludicrous. Going back to pre-Obama regulation would be enough.

AUTaxMan
03-21-2012, 05:09 PM
You mean our HISTORY of terrible monetary policy?

[/U]

No, I am specifically talking about Obama. He doesn't have to double-down on the failed policies of the past. That chart has nothing to do with the current president.

*censored*
03-21-2012, 05:13 PM
No, I am specifically talking about Obama. He doesn't have to double-down on the failed policies of the past. That chart has nothing to do with the current president.

I'm just saying you're acting like failed monetary policy is a new thing. It's not. And nothing will fix it anytime soon.

With a view like yours, you're basically taking 5000 spilled gallons of milk and complaining because Obama added another gallon to the mess. Spare me.

duane1969
03-21-2012, 06:05 PM
I'm just saying you're acting like failed monetary policy is a new thing. It's not. And nothing will fix it anytime soon.

With a view like yours, you're basically taking 5000 spilled gallons of milk and complaining because Obama added another gallon to the mess. Spare me.

My .02 is that Obama was elected on a promise of a better economy and lower gas prices. Thus, if 5000 spilled gallons becomes 5001 then he either lied or failed.

Justifying the failure of the current president with the failure of previous presidents is no justification at all.

Wickabee
03-21-2012, 07:19 PM
I feel sorry for Obama. He has the entire Republican party standing in the way of him really doing anything and then turning around and shouting, "SEE HE LIED TO YOU!" despite the fact that partisan politics on the part of Reps is the problem.

Not that the Dems are really much better when a Rep is in power, just saying, the guy can't win simply because Republicans don't like him

tutall
03-21-2012, 07:52 PM
I feel sorry for Obama. He has the entire Republican party standing in the way of him really doing anything and then turning around and shouting, "SEE HE LIED TO YOU!" despite the fact that partisan politics on the part of Reps is the problem.

Not that the Dems are really much better when a Rep is in power, just saying, the guy can't win simply because Republicans don't like him

Are you kidding me? Go check who, until the latest election cycle, had control of the house, senate, and White House..... Are you denying he has lied to the american people (whether intentional or not is debatable) but he has certainly sold his policies on ideas that cannot possibly be upheld

duane1969
03-21-2012, 11:26 PM
I feel sorry for Obama. He has the entire Republican party standing in the way of him really doing anything and then turning around and shouting, "SEE HE LIED TO YOU!" despite the fact that partisan politics on the part of Reps is the problem.

Not that the Dems are really much better when a Rep is in power, just saying, the guy can't win simply because Republicans don't like him

As was already said, the Dems had control of the House, Senate and White House for 2 years and did nothing during that time but ram through legislation that the majority of Americans opposed.

When it became a legit possibility that the Republicans would win the House Obama made statements like "If the Republicans win the Congress I will be fighting them day and night" then he proceeded to back up his words...

July 2011 - Obama says he will veto Republican Debt Ceiling Plan which calls for government spending cuts
Oct 2011 - Obama threatens to veto two Republican bills that will protect jobs by rolling back EPA regulations (Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011)
Nov 2011 - Obama threatened to veto Republican backed Defense Authorization Act
Nov 2011 - Obama pledges to veto any Republican proposed net neutrality bill
Dec 2011 - Obama threatens to veto Republican House tax bill

I am not foolish enough to think that the Republicans are always striving to work with Obama, but don't think that I am foolish enough to buy that Obama is this partisan guy being bullied by Republicans either.

If Obama wants bi-partisan politics then as the President of our country he is the guy who needs to extend the olive branch rather than threatening every Republican created bill that comes along.

Honestly, if the Republicans created a bill that gave Dems absolute power for the next 50 years I think Obama would instinctively threaten to veto it...

NY Sports Teams
03-21-2012, 11:36 PM
has to be bush

Of course, it has to be. Fifty years down the road it still will be his fault.

Lord knows the only good that's done for our country came/comes from the works of Nancy Patricio D'Alesandro Pelosi, Harry Perry Mason Reid and Barack Hussein Obama.

...Rick

pghin08
03-22-2012, 08:59 AM
Of course, it has to be. Fifty years down the road it still will be his fault.

Lord knows the only good that's done for our country came/comes from the works of Nancy Patricio D'Alesandro Pelosi, Harry Perry Mason Reid and Barack Hussein Obama.

...Rick

I think he was being facetious. By the way, what's with the middle names?

duane1969
03-22-2012, 10:35 AM
Wait! Harry Reid is really Perry Mason?!!

NY Sports Teams
03-22-2012, 10:48 AM
Well, his middle name is Perry and he's a lawyer...Rick

NY Sports Teams
03-22-2012, 10:55 AM
I think he was being facetious. By the way, what's with the middle names?

I just like middle names. Reid's middle name is Perry. That's Pelosi's middle name and maiden name. I guess on the left coast they don't put a hyphen. Her middle name should be "Hurry Up And Snap The Picture Before My Face Cracks".

...Rick

duane1969
03-22-2012, 11:03 AM
I just like middle names. Reid's middle name is Perry. That's Pelosi's middle name and maiden name. I guess on the left coast they don't put a hyphen. Her middle name should be "Hurry Up And Snap The Picture Before The Camera Breaks".

...Rick

Fixed that for ya :)

NY Sports Teams
03-22-2012, 11:05 AM
Fixed that for ya :)

LOL


...Rick

pghin08
03-22-2012, 11:19 AM
I'm a democrat and even I think Pelosi is nuts.

NY Sports Teams
03-22-2012, 11:24 AM
I've never heard that said by a Democrat. There is still hope for you yet. :-)

Just kidding.


...Rick

pghin08
03-22-2012, 11:28 AM
I've never heard that said by a Democrat. There is still hope for you yet. :-)

Just kidding.


...Rick


I like to think of myself as a "logicrat". I have Democratic ideals, but will always try to ground my thought in logic. The first question any politician should ask is, "Does this make sense for the people I represent?" But that seldom ever seems to happen.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 11:29 AM
I like to think of myself as a "logicrat". I have Democratic ideals, but will always try to ground my thought in logic. The first question any politician should ask is, "Does this make sense for the people I represent?" But that seldom ever seems to happen.


Post of the day. :love0030:

NY Sports Teams
03-22-2012, 11:34 AM
My Mom and Dad are/were both Democrats. I was a registered Democrat before entering the military. A long, long time ago I switched to Republican. My Mom asked me what happened to you? I said, "With age came wisdom and I grew up".

...Rick

Star_Cards
03-22-2012, 12:55 PM
I like to think of myself as a "logicrat". I have Democratic ideals, but will always try to ground my thought in logic. The first question any politician should ask is, "Does this make sense for the people I represent?" But that seldom ever seems to happen.

I'm the same way. I think the political party system is archaic and simply keeps our country from progressing. people are way too caught up on sides and standing up to each party's stereotype instead of standing on an individual's ideals and opinions.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 01:00 PM
I'm the same way. I think the political party system is archaic and simply keeps our country from progressing. people are way too caught up on sides and standing up to each party's stereotype instead of standing on an individual's ideals and opinions.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 01:46 PM
I'm the same way. I think the political party system is archaic and simply keeps our country from progressing. people are way too caught up on sides and standing up to each party's stereotype instead of standing on an individual's ideals and opinions.
I love watching American politics. Canadian politics is so boring. You guys treat running the country like a never-ending football game.

Personally I'm of the mind that there is no real democracy as long as there are parties, but that's just me.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 01:50 PM
I love watching American politics. Canadian politics is so boring. You guys treat running the country like a never-ending football game.

Personally I'm of the mind that there is no real democracy as long as there are parties, but that's just me.


You get some for that too.

CHURCH!! :love0030:

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 01:55 PM
Thanks. I'll also add Pelosi is a nutbar (if I were American, I'd be a Dem).

NY Sports Teams
03-22-2012, 11:21 PM
I'm a democrat and even I think Pelosi is nuts.


Thanks. I'll also add Pelosi is a nutbar (if I were American, I'd be a Dem).

I can't take it. One who is a Dem and the other who would be a Dem in the same post saying Pelosi is nuts and is a nutbar. Say it ain't so.

...Rick

MadMan1978
03-27-2012, 05:35 PM
There are definitely some misleading facts in that article, which is nothing more than a puff piece to make Obama look like he cares about the price of gasoline.

First, the article praises the fuel efficiency standards put in place on newly manufactured vehicles as a way of decreasing demand and thus decreasing the price of oil. However, the costs associated with complying with those standards essentially cannot be met unless manufacturers move away from gasoline as a primary source of power. This means lighter, less safe vehicles that do not have the range that most people need. It will also drive up the cost of electricity (created by coal-fired power plants, btw). Thus, you will be forcing people to buy cars they don't want and are less safe so that Washington democrats can feel good about saving the planet, while at the same time having little effect on the world demand for oil (you think China and India are going green?) and necessarily jacking up our power bills.

Second, Obama gets ZERO credit for any success on the home-front in the area of domestic oil production. Production is up because of activity on private land over which Obama has no control to lease or not lease, only to increasingly regulate.

More oil rigs working in the US than the rest of the world combined? That has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

U.S. oil company profits have nothing to do with Obama.

Federal offshore drilling moratorium is Obama's fault and is NOT justified by the BP spill. Are there deepwater oil spills happening all over the rest of the world? No. They are using the spill as a reason to stall the execution of new leases.

The goal of the President is to do what he can to increase the price of gasoline so that it economically justifies his alternative energy projects like wind and solar, which are way too expensive and inefficient to be practical at this time. This is a documented fact, stated by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu a few years ago. Chu is publicly backtracking on his comments, but the policy is quite clear.

The bottom line is that Obama really has no energy policy. His prior policy, to line the pockets of his donors by way of government financing their green energy projects, is coming to an end, and he really has no intention of increasing domestic oil production.

The American Petroleum Institute says we could be energy independent in 30 years if we maximized our rich natural resources. Unfortunately, which leadership like Obama in the WH, that will never happen.


You cannot play the line like this
If your going to fault the man in the office then he also gets the credit for the the increases.

And why should we sell the future of the people and the environment so the GOP leaders can have cheap gas?

The reason why Green energy is though to be too costly is people want the CHEAP why out...always has been that way and always will be!

AUTaxMan
03-27-2012, 05:40 PM
You cannot play the line like this
If your going to fault the man in the office then he also gets the credit for the the increases.

And why should we sell the future of the people and the environment so the GOP leaders can have cheap gas?

The reason why Green energy is though to be too costly is people want the CHEAP why out...always has been that way and always will be!

What is the actual harm to the future of the people and the environment that green energy is supposed to cure?

MadMan1978
03-27-2012, 06:08 PM
Article made some very good points...

AUTaxMan
03-27-2012, 06:16 PM
Article made some very good points...

such as?