35 Days And Counting
by Big Dog on Apr 26, 2011 at 18:47 Political
The price of a gallon of gas when Obama took office was just under two dollars after it had nearly doubled that mark causing Democrats to blame the “oil men” in the White House for the problems. Investigations were launched (nothing was ever found) and when prices went down again, the Democrats moved on to their next item with which to beat the Republican president.
Now gas prices are way up and have eclipsed five dollars a gallon in some places and the price has risen for 35 consecutive days. Obama’s answer has been to blame speculators (were there no speculators the last time) and to tell people perhaps they should not be driving cars that get eight miles to a gallon (without actually knowing if that was the case). Democrats are mostly silent and though Obama is talking the talk, the fact is he wanted gas prices to go higher.
He would have preferred that it was more gradual but he wanted them to rise. In his mind, rising gas prices will force people to cut back consumption and allow him and his regime to pursue their “green” agenda of solar and wind, as if either can power a car.
Before Obama took office he discussed gas prices and said he wanted them to go up so keep this in mind when he acts as if he is pained by it actually happening. He wanted it to happen and it has.
Saying he wanted to see gas prices go up and actually having it happen has a bright side for the Obama supporters.
He finally kept his word on something.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, gas, hypocrisy, lies, Obama, speculators
Not only does he want to prices to rise, he is indeed working hard to ensure they rise and continue to rise. And today the administration has decided they need a task force to investigate the higher prices. Yeah, that’s going to make a lot of sense. After all, it’s the administration that wants to raise taxes on oil — increasing the price. It’s the administration, through the EPA, that has ensured that oil in Alaska stays in the ground — increasing the price. And it’s this administration that is working to control companies and ensure they can fire CEOs — increasing the price.
So yes, this could be counted as a success for Obama, because he is getting exactly what he wants. Now if he would only be honest and admit that, it would be a breath a fresh air.
“He would have preferred that it was more gradual but he wanted them to rise.”
This is correct. He certainly did not want higher gas prices to risk our current recovery though.
Your side likes to point out how much gas has increased under Obama and blame it on any number of random things you think Obama is at fault over. Gas was $4 a gallon just 6 months before Obama took office though. It fell because demand fell and even as it returns to normal it’s still below high mark under Bush.
“In his mind, rising gas prices will force people to cut back consumption and allow him and his regime to pursue their ‘green’ agenda of solar and wind, as if either can power a car.”
And of course the advancement of electric cars, hybrids, more fuel efficient gasoline cars, etc. Then there are things like high-speed rail, bus lines, and other forms of mass transit that are being improved on. Or was it just easier to make Obama look stupid by leaving off the parts of the “green agenda” that actually already help drivers reduce consumption?
I’m not surprised you think Obama is failing on energy policy. Your side has a chronic obsession with the supply side of the equation. While Obama and other adults at the table address real world solutions to decrease demand your side is still both actively pretending such solutions do not exist while also pretending we can drill our way out of the problem somehow.
Adam, the prices needn’t have risen-The moron is hyping “green” electric cars that are more at home on a fairway than a freeway- AND they have to be powered by electricity that you get from COAL POWERED power plants. How utterly STUPID is that- I can’t EVEN begin to count the ways
High speed rail? how are you going to do that? You cannot use existing tracks- they are full of transport already. Are you thinking we are going to have the money to lay NEW track? Maybe if we eliminate SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and ALL other spending combined, but you see, the plain fact is that we are BROKE.
And if you are DECREASING demand, the economy will be tanking- you cannot decrease demand for energy, AND grow the economy. It simply CANNOT BE DONE, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot- sorry, but that is the simple truth.
Mass transit doesn’t work in fly-over land- out here we have distances to travel, and not the population density one needs to make mass transit feasible. Another truth.
Earth Day made me gag, as it usually does- not because of the message, but how the eco-weenies were trying to outdo each other in their Eco- Piousness- it made me want to beat them like a harp seal.(BTW- they make GREAT seat covers- so soft and supple-)
“Adam, the prices needn’t have risen…”
The price of oil fell because demand fell. Now that demand is returning to normal how do you propose we could have kept the price from returning to normal too?
“…AND they have to be powered by electricity that you get from COAL POWERED power plants.”
The carbon burned for the watts it takes to charge an electric car is far less than the carbon burned by a traditional engine. There are many concerns with electric vehicles and energy demand of course. Our electricity grid and means of producing electricity will need to improve over time as well just like our vehicles.
“High speed rail? how are you going to do that?”
High speed rail will be a reality in the next few decades. We’re not going to write out a check for a trillion dollars today and be riding that thing next year. It will start somewhere and grow over time just like our traditional rail systems grew.
“..you cannot decrease demand for energy, AND grow the economy.”
It’s not a decrease in demand of energy that I’m speaking of but a decrease in demand for oil. I doubt the demand for energy will ever decline.
“Mass transit doesn’t work in fly-over land- out here we have distances to travel, and not the population density one needs to make mass transit feasible.”
About 83% of Americans live in non-rural areas. Are you going to call mass transit useless for the vast majority of Americans just because it’s not feasible for that 17%? That 17% is going to just keep doing what it does but with cleaner vehicles and smarter decisions because we can’t afford to do it any other way.
Except the demand for oil remained fairly constant during 2008 and the price rose in 2009 even though demand went down. The demand right now is fairly constant and we actually have a glut of oil (we have more now than in 2008).
Are we going to call mass transit useless (and he said the high speed rail, not mass transit of which HS Rail is a subset) because 17% of people can’t use it? Will we keep it from happening because of 17%?
Well, we change laws for the 4-10% of the population that is gay (and even smaller population in the military). We change things to appease the small percentage of atheists who don’t like to see a religious symbol, so why not?
The reality it, it will cost more money. It will not save anything because it will be underused and it will cost lots to run at less than full capacity. Think Amtrack which is always costing the taxpayers money because it can’t turn a profit.
And I left nothing out of the energy equation for Obama (as you alluded earlier). The rising gas prices are part of the plan to get people begging for relief so Obama can propose things that will take decades to accomplish, will not reduce our need for oil and will not lower the price of gas NOW.
Speculators are running the price up even though we have a glut of oil (so much that Saudi Arabia lowered output).
We know the credit problems prevented the selling of oil supplies in many markets and that was what created a big surplus. It’s correct to say demand stayed fairly constant and supply was the issue. That is a misspeak on my part but I think my overall point still stands. Market forces drove down the price and market forces are driving the price back up. What can we do to prevent that price increase?
“Well, we change laws for the 4-10% of the population that is gay…”
I hardly see how cases of discrimination are good examples here.
“And I left nothing out of the energy equation for Obama (as you alluded earlier).”
You claimed Obama wants solar and wind to fix our car problems. That’s dishonesty.
“The rising gas prices are part of the plan to get people begging for relief so Obama can propose things that will take decades to accomplish, will not reduce our need for oil and will not lower the price of gas NOW.”
So what is Obama not doing in order to let gas prices get high? He campaigned on the fact that no solution is an overnight solution but some solutions have more long term benefit than others. Oil drilling will help us just a little after a while but then be useless. Fuel standards and investment in alternative energy sources has a much bigger long term impact.
Solar and wind are green energy. Mass transit will run on fossil fuel or something created by fossil fuel.
If we had started drilling decades ago we woul dhave the oil and we could be working on new energies (none of which pay off right now) and could achieve that goal with low gas prices. We can drill now and use OUR oil while we work on getting something better, which is decades away.
Obama allowed his people to devalue the dollar which caused the price to go up. Other than that he has done nothing to cause it JUST AS BUSH did nothing to cause it. The speculators drive up the cost.
Presidents have no real control over supply and demand. But when Bush was in office Obama and the other libs blamed it all on the oil men in the White House.
You can’t have it both ways. If the Bush was responsible then, Obama is now.
“Other than that he has done nothing to cause it JUST AS BUSH did nothing to cause it.”
I agree for the most part. I just think that if your energy policy is the status quo like Bush and his support for big oil then you’re failing. Obama has pushed green initiatives forward even if things like cap and trade are pretty much out of the question with a GOP House.
“Solar and wind are green energy. Mass transit will run on fossil fuel or something created by fossil fuel.”
Yes, but the so-called “green agenda” includes mass transit. Obama has been pushing for high-speed rail from day 1.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4311 Top Ten Environmental Scams
Sorry about that other one–it needs another 1 on the end of it
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43111 Top Ten Environmental Scams
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/15310/flashback-obama-2008-blames-bush-and-cheney-for-high-oil-prices-promises-change/
Hahahaha “How is that hopey/changy thing working out for you now?”
Not to mention that oil is traded in dollars and the dollar is very weak thanks to the monetary policies of the regime.
And here is where disinformation and bias gets you everytime. Bush was for the status quo, except he was not because he had renewable energy initiatives. It was just too easy for the Democrats to call him an oil man and say he had no plans while they all bickered about what to do.
Obama has been for mass transit in order to spend money to give union members jobs building something that is not practicable. What will we use high speed rail for? What land will be confiscated to build it? How much will it cost? Who will run it? If government runs it then it will always cost taxpayers money and the 17% you say we should not have to worry about will have their money confiscated as taxes to pay for it just like Amtrak. That is as discriminatory as it gets.
And not removing a religious symbol to appease an atheist is not a discriminatory policy. Not allowing gays to serve in the militsary or get married is a matter of social mores. Making people opposed to it accept it is discriminatory.
Why should the majority be forced to accept something they do not like? You made the case with HS Rail.
Show me a green energy that is ready and will make profits while reducing pollution and we can talk. They are a long way off.
“Bush was for the status quo, except he was not because he had renewable energy initiatives.”
Bush was well known for saying one thing and doing another when it came to clean energy.
“Show me a green energy that is ready and will make profits while reducing pollution and we can talk.”
Just depends on how you define ready. Are there many green energy solutions at the consumer level? Yes. Is there some holy grail of green energy that would replace fossil fuels? No. My side is going to keep dragging your side kicking and screaming toward this goal and you’ll be powerless to stop us.
Well of course you are using a metaphor because no one on your side is able to drag me anywhere.
You are well trained in changing the issue comrade. No one on my side said we were not in favor of renewable and green energy. We do not want to stop using fossil fuels or pay a fortune for them because of some technology that is nowhere near ready for prime time.
They can keep on working on it and when it is ready we can use it. Until then we need to be going after our own resources. Carter set up the DOE to take us off foreign oil. Billions and decades later and we are on foreign oil and have not gone after our own. Either they do their job or we abolish them because they did not uphold their mission.
Because Bush rejected some ideas and did not want to waste taxpayer money on others does not mean he said one thing and did another. I do find it strange that you would say this about Bush but defend Obama when he does it.
I am not surprised as you would defend him if he murdered and ate a baby on live TV but it is strange nonetheless.
Obama is a Socialist who wants to control people. He had better be very careful or he will cause a stir in the population and it will not be pretty. Fights will soon break out over gas.
And Obama should stop telling people he is on board with this and they should not be paying more blah, blah. HE WANTS THE PRICES HIGHER.
“No one on my side said we were not in favor of renewable and green energy.”
And yet you offer no support for policies that conflict when the oil industry that funds your side. Your side would be saying “No one on my side said we are not in favor of going to the moon. But when it’s possible we’ll do it.” We need to invest in this stuff and work toward it. We had people like Van Jones in the administration that talked about green jobs as a new Apollo program but of course your side smeared them and ran them out of office and you felt really proud of yourselves after doing so.
Van Jones is a Communist and 9/11 truther. He is a danger to the country. No, you are wrong again. We offer plenty of solutions and support we just do not want to get rid of oil or pay higher prices for scams like cap and tax just to put the new stuff on the table. We went to the moon when we had the available technology. We did not stop all other things in life to do it. You guys want to stop oil and then look for something else. When you say your energy policies will make prices necessarily skyrocket then you should not expect many people to jump on board.
As for oil funding my side. Perhaps you should look and see who is getting that money. I think it is spread around among people from both parties.
But that is another LIE your side likes. Sort of like Wall Street funding my side when it gives more money to your guys…
And that would explain the friendly policies the left made for them that helped drive us into the ground.
“I think it is spread around among people from both parties.”
If by spread around you mean 1 out of every 4 dollars goes to Democrats. About 75% of oil money goes to the GOP. The GOP got about $100 million in donations in 2010 alone.
“Sort of like Wall Street funding my side when it gives more money to your guys…”
Finance is much closer to even than oil is for sure. But other than the National Assn of Realtors, financial institutions give far more to the GOP than Democrats. The NAR gave far more to Democrats in 2008 but overall the GOP has received about 55% of the money over the last few election cycles.
If there are alternatives to measure the contributions at the level you think they’re at then let me know. So far the facts don’t line up with what you’re suggesting.
“You guys want to stop oil and then look for something else.”
Some liberals do. Most do not. We just don’t see the need to escalate oil production at the expense of our environment just for a few years of oil but countless decades of nature destroyed. Global warming is real. Peak oil is real. It’s time to stop chanting drill baby drill and get with the program. Your side can continue to reject reality and substitute your own but for how long?
Adam- whether we drill here for our own reserves, or ship oil over in million barrel tankers, we WILL have another spill someday- but if you look at the record, drilling platforms have spilled far less than tankers, which have the annoying tendency to run aground.
The true difference, is that we could be mitigating the price of a barrel of crude by drilling here, and because we are (by far) the safest nation in terms of our safeguards, we would have less environmental damage than if we rely on Nigeria, or Saudi Arabia, or Brazil, Bari’s newest butt buddies.
We can support emerging economies like Brazil by buying their oil and we can spend our better time and money investing in alternatives to oil. It’s win, win. Even if we were to bring every single gallon of oil owned by the US into production today it would lower gas prices for a few months to a few years and we’d be right back where we are today still no closer to solutions we should have started developing 30 years ago it if wasn’t for people like yourselves. How many conservatives reading this site have ever purposefully burned more carbon in opposition to things like Earth Day? The childish nature of so many American conservatives never ceases to amaze me.
Childish nature from the people who believe in global warming? Need I remind you that Carter started the DOE to end our dependance on oil. That did not happen and it is because of all politicians.
We have plenty of oil and for some reason as the supply dwindles they keep finding more.
“Childish nature from the people who believe in global warming?”
Not sure what that means.
“That did not happen and it is because of all politicians.”
All politicians beholden to the oil industry that is. This doesn’t exclude all Democrats but it does tend to include more Republicans than not.
“We have plenty of oil and for some reason as the supply dwindles they keep finding more.”
The idea of peak oil does not mean we won’t find more. Even with significant new finds now and again the majority of oil producing nations have been in decline for quite some time.
If Apple reduces the number of iPhones it makes does that mean the world is running out of iPhones?
The countries on your link have reduced their output to affect prices. The fact that they voluntarily reduced production does not mean they are running out. They might be but this is no indicator of it.
The US is way down because our government will not allow us to get it. How does the government’s decisions to disallow us from drilling (and producing, think moratorium) mean we are running out? It only means we have reduced our production on our own, not because we have none to get.
Nice try.
“The countries on your link have reduced their output to affect prices.”
Have they? You base that idea on what? There are 40 countries in decline. The article notes that some like the US are constrained for reasons other than simply supply but that is not to say that if the US began to operate at full capacity it would return above 1970’s levels.
So basically you’re arguing that world oil is not running out? We are running out of cheap oil for sure. There’s no doubt about that.
I am not arguing that we are not running out of oil, I am saying that this chart does not show that. It only shows production down and not why.
I base it on OPEC nations saying when they reduce production in order to keep prices at certain levels.
We might be running out of oil but we do not know. Oil was made as part of the eco process and is still being made. Will enough be made to replace what we use, I do not know. I do know that no one has a real method to determine exactly ho wmuch there is, where it all even is, or if we have more or less than before.
The article addresses that subject though. For instance:
And on the subject of OPEC:
I agree that the chart doesn’t go into great detail on that idea but it doesn’t ignore it either.
It is also speculative. It is widely believed (not proven) and the truth is unclear (not known).
We could have plenty MORE oil since the earth continues to make it. I am not saying that is so because, like the story, I have no way of knowing, but it is possible.
Finds in Brazil, Gulf of Mexico, all kinds of big oil fields.
It’s true that we could have major oil finds. Realistically speaking almost anything is possible. It’s just unlikely at this point that any find would have much impact given that the world consumes somewhere around 86 million barrels a day already and this grows.