Gas Prices Heading For New Highs
by Big Dog on Mar 5, 2011 at 19:38 Political
Gasoline is heading for $4.00 a gallon and could get to $5.00 in the next year or so. These numbers represent all time highs in the United States and are much higher than they were when Democrats took control of Congress. That was the time when Democrats were blaming George Bush for the prices and demanding investigation after investigation into price gouging by oil companies (none was ever found).
With Democrats in charge the cost of gasoline went up and they went out on a number of public appearances in order to blame George Bush. Of course, they left their cars running so they would remain cool. Can’t have sweaty politicians (slimy is another matter).
Gasoline is a global commodity and world events affect the price. Democrats failed to see it that way when they had Bush to blame and they stubbornly refused to allow us to drill for our own resources.
Now that Obama is in charge and the price of gasoline is heading for the stratosphere, nary a Democrat has blamed him or called for investigations. None of them are standing at photo op appearances blaming the man in the White House.
No, they were full of crap back then and they are full of crap now. They do not care about the cost because it does not affect them.
But remember, Democrats blamed the man in the White House the last time so that means the man there now is also to blame.
Why are the Democrats so silent on this issue?
Also, Rick Santelli sheds light on the recent jobs numbers.
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, drill baby drill, gasoline, lies, price hikes
Santelli is correct in general though not so correct about this month. Overall this is why a sign of substantial recovery will most likely be an increase in the unemployment rate by perhaps as much as 2%. The GOP will spin this as a sign of things getting worse but remember I’ve been warning of this for months.
As far as this month goes, Santelli picked a bad one to talk down about. He points out that the participation rate remained the same (technically declined 0.0144%) while jobs grew by 192,000. U-6 which factors in the discouraged workers Santelli worries about declined from 16.1% to 15.9% which shows the numbers to be positive signs and not just declines predicated on workers leaving the workforce.
Nice spin there Adam but let’s get real. When the numbers go down or stay the same as they have for nearly 2 years it was pointed out that this is because people are no longer looking the left ignored that and reality by spinning it as good news.
You discussed it in the past and I pointed out that if you spin this as good when people stop looking and numbers go down or do not go up then you can’t complain when they numbers go us as people start looking again if it is used against you.
You can’t have it both ways which is how you guys want it. You all crowed about how wonderful it is as you are right now. To you all this movement and better numbers means the stimulus was great and Obama is wondeful.
So, when the people start looking and the numbers go up you can’t suddenly dismiss it because you want to change the standard.
And you can’t whine that the GOP will spin it as getting worse when you all spin it to say things are getting better.
Sorry, you will be held to the standard you chose.
A 0.2% drop is not significant or indicative of recovery vs. people leaving the workforce.
How many fewer are in the denominator?
“You discussed it in the past and I pointed out that if you spin this as good when people stop looking and numbers go down or do not go up then you can’t complain when they numbers go us as people start looking again if it is used against you.”
Nice try, but the good news is always in the job growth and not the decline in unemployment. I want the rate to decline but I also sit on a mountain of statistics that let me calculate these values myself by hand so I have a pretty strong grasp of why the rate goes up and down.
As I said already you can find me on this site saying the unemployment rate will go up when job growth increases. You’ve simply fabricated this double standard nonsense in the last few weeks because you’re running out of reasons to suggest the economy is on the brink of collapse.
“A 0.2% drop is not significant or indicative of recovery vs. people leaving the workforce.”
By the way. We’ve been in recovery for almost 2 years now. Job growth has gone from 820,000 jobs lost in Jan 2009 to 192,000 jobs added in Feb 2011. I know you’ve had your head in the sand the whole time but it’s time to get with the program.
You are of course, wrong. You wrote on this site that numbers and percents were good, you dismissed the people who stopped looking and you dismissed the good numbers as a result of the census workers. You said that did not matter. Yes, you said that there would be a rise in UE but said that would not matter as well because it is expected.
Just as it is expected that when people stop looking the numbers get better.
We have lost a few million. The net is a big loss.
We gained a lot of government workers but private sector is a net loss under Obambam.
I do not have my head in the sand. I just don’t let people blow smoke up my a$$. You will do anything to see it as good. Under Bush the UE rate was the same as Clinton’s for years and you and your ilk said he lost jobs and the economy was terrible.
The truth is we are not in a recovery. We are in a fragile period where we can go over the edge. We are broke, contrary to what that moron Moore says, and we cannot afford what we have committed to spend.
THERE IS NO MONEY.
Government is broke and we are going to be in bad shape unless the Republicans can get the spending cuts done and the budget under control.
Obama increased government spending and the budgets of all federal agencies and now want to level off or cut a little which still puts them at a net increase.
We need to take an axe to the budget and spare nothing.
“We have lost a few million. The net is a big loss.”
Right. Always moving the goal posts. Remember we couldn’t trumpet fewer job losses as a sign of progress until they were actually positive. Now I guess we can’t trumpet good positive numbers until we’ve made back all those 8 million jobs lost? What’s next?
“Under Bush the UE rate was the same as Clinton’s for years and you and your ilk said he lost jobs and the economy was terrible.”
It was similar to Clinton’s low numbers for just a few months to a year and it was sandwiched in between two recessions, the second of which cost us 8 million jobs and created the first net job loss in a 10 year priod in a long, long time. Remind me again why I should change course and start talking up Bush’s job numbers?
“Government is broke…”
No, it’s not. It’s a government, not a bank account. Too many conservatives have latched on to “we’re broke” as a talking point and it’s simply not true.
Deficits and high debt are bad because it crowds out investment and other economic growth but we certainly aren’t in some fragile period where we can go over the edge.
I am with the program. I have all the necessities for anything that comes our way.
You want to get with your program you go ahead. I am tired of paying for the losers.
Obama said we could expect higher energy prices… it must make Barry’s day to see his subjects standing around the pump like cattle looking at a new gate.
I wonder what the cost will be to clean up the White House when our first undocumented, affirmative action, purple-lipped, jug eared President and his kit are ejected.
Of course the Democrats are silent. So, of course, is the media. This is just another illustration of how reality is meaningless to the media and Democrats. You can bet, if it hasn’t started already, that there will be reports blaming high gas prices on Republicans in Congress soon.
The problem is you and Big Dog are ignoring why Democrats were critical of Bush. Outside of a few liberal kooks the bulk of the criticism was aimed at Bush over his ties to the oil industry and his tendency to want to only address the supply side of the problem and not to lower demand. If Democrats aren’t blaming Obama enough for the prices maybe it’s because he has no ties to the oil industry and he campaigned on and has worked for clean energy initiatives that go for an actual solution to the problem instead of the band-aid solutions the GOP comes up with that just so happen to always benefit their rich friends in the oil industry.