Obama slams McCain, Bush on economy, gasoline prices

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 0

    Betzee

    “Talk to somebody who owns a couple of trucks and makes a living with those trucks,” McCain said. “Ask them whether they’d like to have some relief—18 1/2 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24 1/2 cents for diesel. They say it matters.”

    As a resident of a state in which gas prices are approaching 5 bucks a gallon, I'm sure it does. But it also means Uncle Sam will have to borrow even more to meet its current obligations. And future generations of taxpayers will get socked with an even higher level of debt incurred for spending priorities over which they had no say. Truly taxation without representation.

    How much sympathy am I supposed to have for the person who bought a gaz guzzler when the price of gas was low? It's hard to muster a whole lot, frankly. I plan to buy a hybrid vehicle myself in the fall. While not everyone is in a position to do that, everyone needs to face the reality that the cost of gas ain't coming down.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Betzee, last week's Newsweek mentions that if the price of gas hits $200 a barrel, GM will be gone - they simply cannot update their model line fast enough to take rapidly changing consumer preferences for more fuel efficient cars into account.

    I can't say I feel sorry for them - Toyota offered GM a hybrid technology tie up about 12 years ago. GM signed on the dotted line but didn't take the deal seriously, much to thier detriment now.

    Also, Sen. McCain is pushing himself into a corner - he says he wants to battle climate change, but offering a gas tax holiday will only make Americans buy more gas and put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

    He can't have both and hope to stay credible.

    On top of that, only a few months ago, McCain was telling Detroit auto workers he would fight to protect their jobs, while Obama was saying America needs to wean itself off oil snd invest more in renewables.

    Guess who's going to be on the right side of the fence here?

    Obama, to his credit, offers a coherent stance on these two issues - fight climate change, no gas tax holiday, AND, he is now pushing for a windfall tax on gas companies, while Bush is still pushing Congress to open up ANWAR, which, as is pretty obvious, will also lead to increased CO2 emmissions.

    It's pretty interesting to see how the rapid change of events is proving the Republicans wrong - yet again.

  • 0

    pathat

    And after Obama finishes 4 years as president, the American people will wake up in January 2013 to welcome a new one; belatedly realizing that just because someone talks a good talk does not mean they really have any answers.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    pathat - that can't be as bad as it is now where Americans wake up every morning to record breaking gas prices, 2 morale and money sapping wars without end, rising unemployment, a rapidly tanking economy, more threats and enemies than ever, and a president without a clue.

  • 0

    treebeard

    Obama slams McCain, Bush on economy, gasoline prices

    is Bush is running again!?!?

    the Democrats promised to fix the gas problems when they "Took over"...

    oh you mean they lied!?!? or they are totally powerless even with majorities in the House and Senate... say it ain't so. That W sure is a sneaky one...

  • 0

    chardk1

    I think in any case it will be really tough for McCain to win when he himself repeatedly stresses that Americans need a change more than anything else. His conclusion -- that he is clearly the more obvious and compelling agent of change -- is not nearly as intuitive as he seems to think it is.

    Republicans who criticize Obama for not having the idea to back up his rhetoric, I do have to ask, how can that be worse than having and implementing a lot of really bad ideas? Harriet Miers, Supreme Court Justice? Really?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    treebeard - "is Bush is running again!?!?"

    No, but Obama's strategy is to connect Bush and McCain's names in the minds of American voters, hence the mention.

    treebeard - "That W sure is a sneaky one..." with the power of veto.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    McCain's age and old world generation are really beginning to show.

  • 0

    pathat

    SushiSake-You know how I feel about Dubya, but I cant help but think that Obama will be a disaster as president in his own right. Hes going to be saddled with overwhelming economic problems from the get-go, and I just don`t think he has a clue anyway. He should be a daytime talk show host, or maybe even a preacher since his old one retired.

  • 0

    Betzee

    Sushi,

    Drive a Toyota Prius, and let harmony and peace reign throughout the land. The lion will lie down with the lamb, road rage will vanish from the highways, and the world will be a safer place for reckless highway-crossing animals....Provided, of course, that the Prius in question is a modified plug-in hybrid capable of recharging itself from the electricity grid.

    Hybrids offer a different way of driving and it's quite relaxing once you get used to it. To make use of the electric mode, you drive less aggressively.

    I live in the land of the auto mall. Every time I drive by one I can't help noticing the number of gas guzzlers collecting dust in the sunshine. Four years ago having a hybrid was a novelty, now it's common place.

    For those who need relief at the pump because they are stuck paying off gaz guzzlers which they bought on some five-year loan plan, well I hope I don't sound too much like a Republican by saying "personal responsibility."

  • 0

    adaydream

    I don't think congress has anything to do with Prudhoe Bay oil fields reducing the size of their pipelines from 36 inches to 18 inches.

    Congress doesn't have anything to do with Gulls Island oil fields being capped and not producing.

    But the republicans keep advocating more drilling. I really have no problem with more drilling if it's needed. But when you have oil and refuse to release it to the market, I call for giving away more claims for drilling oil a mistake.

    The tax breaks that george bush gave to the rich has done nothing to help this recession. All it did was increase the national debt and give 1% of the population $4Trillion. John McCain wants to continue the bleeding. < :-)

  • 0

    chardk1

    Pathat, just why will Obama be saddled with overwhelming economic problems from the get-go? I'm sorry, was the Green Party responsible for that? So if your party digs a big enough hole such that nobody can get the country out of it, that is the reason you should always hold power? That's not a very healthy democracy. By that logic, Kim Jong Il and his family should always rule North Korea since nobody's going to be able to do anything about that mess anyway.

    As arguments go, "well, sure we f'd it up good but the other guy will be just as bad" isn't really strong, which is why even a lot of Republicans quietly think it's probably best to see if the Dems can run the show for a bit while they restrategize and regroup.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    boring people. It costs Arab Oil Producing Countries less than US $2.00 per barrel, yet all want to blame the US government for the world gas issue. And of course, slithering tounge politicians are running up to it and selling it to the weak minded.

    Neither Obama nor McCain really know enough about the issue and no, its really not the oil companies that are doing it either. The Oil Producing countries are laughing all the way to the bank watching all of us accusing either candidate of not doing the right thing, not doing enough, blah blah, but had the US government invested in solar, wind, or even nuke energy back in the 70's when we had the first gas crises, we would not be having this discussion today.

    The problem is really not the oil companies, it is neither policy of McCain or Obama or Repubs or Dems, but the Arab countries who have had a strangle hold on us for so long are now getting scared as smaller, cheaper, and easier they are getting worried that we are getting close to cut them off.

    I love this: "I hope I don't sound too much like a Republican by saying "personal responsibility."" Oh, but everything comes down to it. If you live in a city, you don't need a car. Rent one if you go somewhere on the weekend. You don't need to roll one to Roppongi like I see so many do. Buy a bike, or even a scooter. In fact frigging walk your fat butts. It does come down to personnal responsibility and that is ONE BIG ISSUE I have against so many Dems.

    I would go more into detail, but I would be violating JT rules. But I leave this to you all, stop being a sheep.

  • 0

    Sarge

    As if McCain or Bush can control gasoline prices. Obama's an idiot.

  • 0

    shimajiro

    Obama's RX for the economy comes with a big dose of populism. Targetted redistribution can alleviate suffering but the broad brush soak-the-rich sort is not going to grow the economy and may well hurt. Furthermore his support for protectionism, unionization, regulation, unfunded mandates on employers, taxes on "windfall" corporate profits and higher personal taxes are a toxic brew that risk cutting the economy's growth potential and increasing inflationary pressures. . In the short term the Fed is going to have much more influence over the economic cycle than the president. In the longer term, rising productivity is the way to lift the standard of living. The government can best achieve this by improving the quality of primary and secondary education and engaging with the world via, dare I say it, globalization. Unfortunately Obama's not well positioned to take on the teacher's unions which, IMO, are an impediment to change in our schools nor the manufacturing unions. Greater investment in a broken system isn't going to produce the kind of improvement we need. . McCain's gas holiday is also economic populism that does him no credit. Expanding economic liberty through cuts in the overall level of taxation are a great aspiration but they must be "paid for" by cuts in government expenditure or a slowing the growth of economic expenditure relative to the growth of the economy. Increasing government borrowing to pay for tax cuts is misconcived. McCain needs to have the courage of his convinctions to sell the idea of immigration reform and work to assimilate the millions of illegal aliens. Like Obama, he has the unfortunate habit of trying to find scapegoats for American's economic ills - too often bogeymen such as "foreigners" or "corporations". . In terms of energy, the eco-friendly alternatives that Obama espouses are important for the future but will fall far short of our need in the near and even intermediate term. IMO, McCain is right to champion nuclear. A carbon tax can be used to limit the production of pollution to socially-desirably levels. . Lastly McCain needs to place more emphasis on improving the affordability and portability of health insurance - especially by making the government smarter about the way it procures medical care and empowering consumers. The government's "investment" level is alaready more than sufficient.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    why has congress put such a high tariff on fuel imports? I thought they wanted this issue to go away?

    If someone doesn't start doing something now, like they should have done back in the 70's, we are going to head, I am sure you will laugh, but a nasty war. The US government needs to start allowing drilling, nuke energy, 0 tariffs on fuel imports that don't include oil, such as ethanol.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    As if McCain or Bush can control gasoline prices. Obama's an idiot." They don't have any effect on it at all, but Obama is no idiot. He knows 90% of America is made of idiots and idiots get what they are sold and are sold by who they like not by who has the better deal. No, Obama is smart. Tell the 90% what they want to hear, and he wins.

    Mind you, McCain is not idiot either, but he just isn't liked.

  • 0

    Betzee

    Shima, The US population grew from 200 million in 1970 to 300 million by the mid-1990s, almost all due to immigration. No other industrialized country experienced this rate of growth which accounts for our increasing consumption of energy resources.

    In an election year politicians will give away what they have to win election, or re-election in the case of GWB's prescription drug benefit for seniors. Let somebody else figure out how to pay for it seems to be the name of the game, as long as I can say "I didn't raise taxes." Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and a little relief goes a long way. McCain clearly recognizes this in getting behind the temporary suspension of the federal gax tax for the summer.

  • 0

    pathat

    chardk1:

    Pathat, just why will Obama be saddled with overwhelming economic problems from the get-go?

    Uh, gee, I guess because they are there, chardk1.

    I'm sorry, was the Green Party responsible for that?

    It is a question only you could ask, chardk1, so only you can answer it.

    By that logic, Kim Jong Il and his family should always rule North Korea since nobody's going to be able to do anything about that mess anyway.

    Speaking of inscrutable logic....

    So if your party digs a big enough hole such that nobody can get the country out of it, that is the reason you should always hold power? That's not a very healthy democracy.

    When did I say that the Republicans should continue to hold power from January 2009? In fact, I have long favored the opposite. If you were familiar with my posting history on JT, you would be aware of this.

    I am sorry that my logic is beyond your comprehension.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    The US population grew from 200 million in 1970 to 300 million by the mid-1990s, almost all due to immigration" Betzee, very solid point. You do understand however, if you bring this up in any kind of environment meeting you will be asked to leave. Yes, it is true.

  • 0

    Betzee

    Nonsense, Skip. I took that statistic from the following article, link below: Fueling a U.S. population boom that’s taxing the environment.

    McCain's home state, Arizona, has had some success in tackling the undocumented problem by going after the employers (who are also breaking the law) and threatening them with legal repercussions. This could never happen in California, where I live, because the reliance on cheap labor is too great (especially in the agricultural sector). I even know people who employ illegal gardeners or housekeepers and yet complain about the cost of illegals to the economy. Politicians love to cater to this type of denial because it absolves the citizenry of any responsibility for the state of things across our land.

    http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-May-29/newcomers-are-fueling-a-us-population-boom-thats-taxing-the-environment/1/@@index

  • 0

    Betzee

    Whatever your particular priorities for Uncle Sam, be it bringing freedom to the long-suffering Iraqis or providing the world's downtrodden with the opportunity to better themselves by coming to the USA, these choices cost and that has to be acknowledged by their respective proponents.

    These extracts from letters do a good job of illuminating that:

    Re: [T]he fluidity of people to the fluidity of “goods” in the world market. While the comparison is strictly apt in an economic sense, it’s somewhat less compelling in a larger perspective. An imported shoe, for instance, doesn’t bring a cultural heritage along with it. A cheap Chinese toy is eventually consumed and discarded. Labor, as a good, is another story. As demonstrated in both today’s France and classical Sparta, imported labor is not so easy to integrate and consume without massive social costs....

    I believe the United States is more than a collection of consumers for whom the aggregate standard of living is the highest good. It is also a set of shared customs, experiences, mythology, language, history, and, to the extent we have any, culture. It’s not that I wish harm to others living in clearly worse conditions elsewhere in the world but rather that after careful consideration I find that their problems are a far lower priority for me than those of my fellow Americans....

    http://www.reason.com/news/printer/125450.html

  • 0

    shimajiro

    Betzee:

    ...be it bringing freedom to the long-suffering Iraqis or providing the world's downtrodden with the opportunity to better themselves by coming to the USA, these choices cost and that has to be acknowledged by their respective proponents.

    Agreed. Costs as well as benefits should be tallied. On balance I think the evidence suggests that immigrants are a source of economic vitality both for our country and the countries they leave behind. However, the U.S. could do a much better job of managing the flow. A good place to start would be by making it much easier to enter the country legally and become citizens.

  • 0

    Alinsky4prez

    You know, the whole notion that umm, we can drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and uh keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times - and then umm, just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s just not going to happen. I'm glad you're fired up.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "That’s not leadership. That’s just not going to happen."

    The sad thing is, America hasn't had real leadership since 2000.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    I even know people who employ illegal gardeners or housekeepers and yet complain about the cost of illegals to the economy. Politicians love to cater to this type of denial because it absolves the citizenry of any responsibility for the state of things across our land." Sure, I am one of them. What I complain about is when illegals start complaining about not getting what legals are getting - then I say become legal. Yet, I never mention illegal immigration. I said I agreed with your statement that we have grown that much due to immigration. What I was trying to point out is all I ever hear is how much Americans have increased their usage of natural resources, and one of those reasons is the influx of immigration. Never said anything bad or good, just pointed out the facts - whether you like them or not doesn't make it any less incorrect. If you like the idea of paying higher taxes and yet not promoting a system where illegals are taxed, then by all means go ahead. If illegals don't have any negative impact, especially in your state, why are local counties busting at the seems, especially that state's health care?????

    The sad thing is, America hasn't had real leadership since 2000" No Sushi, we haven't had any real leadership since the 60's! And it doesn't look like we will have anytime soon as long as we keep electing elephants and donkeys. By voting in Obama, the only real thing we will have is a cool president. Perhaps that will buy us some respect abroad.

  • 0

    Loki520

    ANWR is the answer, along with allowing production/drilling within the 80% of our coastal area currently off limits. The technology to do this with very minimal footprints is here. CO2 emissions are NOT the problem. The issue is the plight of the spot-bellied, overly-green, fishing worm or some such other nonsense.

    And there IS drilling within those off-limit areas, but not by US companies. Who has a rig 60 miles off the coast of Florida? That's right boys and girls... China.

    Bubba vetoed a bill that would have allowed production in ANWR. Supported by the Democrats, their reasoning was that the benefits wouldn't be visible and solid for 10 years. That was 11 years ago. How many barrels of oil could have flowed in the past year or two if he had not vetoed it. Instead, they wanted to focus on alternative fuels. And they refused to fund that research at a level that would have provided benefits by now.

    Therefore.... mickey mouse it is.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    here is what I don't like and its in typical political fashion.

    Here we have Obama, a guy who really hasn't done much, except be cool. He hasn't voted on many things and the things he did vote for, quite a lot of them were with Bush. Now, as a non-McC supporter, I don't think this is fair. What has Obama done that puts him in the position to criticize anyone except look from the outside. I do hope when he is elected, there is a real plan. Because Obama is going to be free of criticism because you won't be able to criticize him.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    But, but, but ... a centerpiece of the democrats' 2006 campaign was a promise for a plan to reduce gas prices. It is the majority holding democrats in the House and Senate's fault for the state of the U.S. right now.

    Although obama likes point his finger and blame others, the fact remains the democrats did a job on the country in their quest for supreme control of the American government.

    Since the dems have regained power in Congress 1 1/2 years ago everything in America now costs more.

    RR

  • 0

    skipthesong

    It is the majority holding democrats in the House and Senate's fault for the state of the U.S. right now."
    Since the dems have regained power in Congress 1 1/2 years ago everything in America now costs more."

    YOu know what? I forgot all about that. haven't seen any discussions in the news about that and it makes me wonder. I have forgotten they have taken control, how many others have as well???

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Obama offered no new policies in his speech, which he read from teleprompters.

    Heh ... obama's in his element: No solutions because none were in the script.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    In the audience was former presidential rival John Edwards, who lives nearby. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards — who refrained from endorsing Obama when her husband did so last month — also attended.

    Heh, even she sees obama as the fraud that he is.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    our president sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs.

    So now obama calls massive government spending "investments"? And here comes the class warfare, tax breaks for those evil corporations who employ everyone.

    Yeah, raising taxes on them is real smart. And of course, for the few CEOs who make a lot of money, they must be taxed to the point no one no longer strives to over achieve. Marxism at its best.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Obama called for greater government investments “in a renewable energy policy that ends our addiction on foreign oil, provides real long-term relief from high fuel costs, and builds a green economy that could create up to five million well-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced."

    Here comes the increased spending line, covered by "but it's green"....

    The man wants total socialism. Lying that if it's green energy it will be cheaper energy because the government will pay for it.

    Heh, obama knows no limits to his lies. Memo to barack: Get better script writers because if it were indeed cheaper to go green, we would have gone green decades ago.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    He (obama) did not mention nuclear power, although in the past he has said he would not rule out a greater role for nuclear energy.

    Heh .... obama's dog walkers in the liberal press are now speaking for The Empty Suit. Because Mr. McCain spoke about it they somehow felt the need to be obama's spokesman.

    Hope Lord Soros is paying them well because that isn't what unbiased news agencies are supposed to be doing.

    RR

  • 0

    skipthesong

    what is not being told to people in the audiences of either candidate while they sell you on their super duper plans, is that the main problem with the rising gas prices are not the result of greedy gas companies (why should I try to get as much money as I could?), its really not OPEC but they do have a very big influence on it. NOpe, the real problem are the drivers around the world. No matter how high the prices go, there hasn't been a dramatic drop in the amount of gas being sold.

    So, really anyone listening to Obama's speech, or even McC's speech and are waving flags, singing blah blah, and are believing what they hear really don't have a clue that they themselves are the real problem. What Obama or McCain should be saying to bring down gas prices is: "once I am president, we are going to boycott OPEC. And you, the consumer, the SUV driver will have to take a bite in your picnic time and not drive to work, camping, or what ever requires you to use gas.
    If you live close to a city, you will take a bus, or car pool - bottom line, we will not be buying gas".

  • 0

    Loki520

    Someone needs to ask BO when those 5mil jobs, based on his "green" economy will become available and when that same economy will benefit the average citizen.

    "Green", "Change", "Relief", etc. are all really swell words that everyone wants to be a part of. The fact of the matter is that the average citizen, IMHO, is more interested in instant relief and change NOW.

    ANWR has immediate benefits in employment. The tech is great and provides a much smaller footprint than they will admit. And it can provide instant relief the moment the drilling starts.

    DAMNIT. We have local resources, let's get em!

  • 0

    yabits

    Heh, even [Elizabeth Edwards] sees obama as the fraud that he is.

    But she IS supporting Obama.

    It's McCain who is the fraud. And there's someone who can vouch for that: his first wife, Carol, who John DUMPED after she was injured and disfigured in a car accident. Mother to his first three children, Johnny-boy dumped her for a younger woman who was also rich and able to fund his ambitions.

    Most people are yet to be aware of Carol McCain. John has been silent about Carol all these years, but now she's starting to give interviews. They reveal that the diminutive Mr. McCain is one of the more callous and cruel people in politics today.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Johnny-boy dumped her for a younger woman who was also rich and able to fund his ambitions." Actually, I respect that! Do you think I married my wife for love? Sure, she's hot (was), a doctor, from a wealthy family... Just think if I married my long time girlfriend, I wouldn't be here now chatting with you guys.

    I don't blame any guy or woman for following the money.

  • 0

    Betzee

    a centerpiece of the democrats' 2006 campaign was a promise for a plan to reduce gas prices.

    Correction: It was GWB who was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

    How much did gas cost back in those days? $1.50 a gallon? GWB's own efforts to "jawbone" OPEC amounted to nil, what a surprise.

    Perhaps it would be fitting, on his last day in office, for him to reflect on just how much of our national wealth has gone overseas during his watch. To the oil producing nations, obviously, as well as the Chinese who bankrolled his deficits so he could keep taxes low. He's sure handing a mess to his successor.

  • 0

    Taka313

    Is Sen. McCain really still pushing the federal gas tax thing? Wow.
    I would have thought that joe lieberman would have whispered in his ear that it's a dumb idea by now.

    Taka

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Romeo's clearly still bitter because every single Republican he supported was blown out of the race leaving a centrist, 'Global Liberal' supporting foreign-born divorcee in John McCain.

    Heh, and if you check Romeo's posts, you'll find he doesn't actually *support *Sen. McCain. But he's quite happy to bash Obama all day.....

    Romeo - "Yeah, raising taxes on them is real smart."

    Romeo doesn't mention that it doesn't matter who is elected president, taxes will have to be raised to counter the reckless spending of the current president, who Romeo - and only about 19% of Americans - support.

    Heh, 'minority' has a whole new meaning when you apply it to the few straggling Bush supporters like Romeo.

  • 0

    adaydream

    ANWR is the answer

    Please answer me this. Why is ANMR the answer when there are oilfields that are capped and not producing? Why is there oil at Gulls Island that isn't being pumped at all? Why were Prudhoe Bay pipelines reduced from 36 inch pipes to 18 inches? < :-)

  • 0

    ca1ic0cat

    yep, sushi has hit the one type of thinking that neither a politician or a taxpayer will ever get around to: "taxes are too high" - try cutting them. "the price of gas is too high" - take your foot off the gas, take the train, get rid of your gas hog vehicle.

    Nope, it will never happen no matter who is elected. Taxes and the price of gas are going to go up!

    That said I still think Obama has a long way to go to add some details to his plans. Right now there is no substance to what he is saying no matter how eloquent he is.

  • 0

    ca1ic0cat

    lol, here is something really funny. Just happened across a polling website: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364874,00.html

    While 66% polled thing W is doing a bad job, 75% polled think congress is doing a bad job.

    Of course both Obama and McCain are part of congress....

  • 0

    Madverts

    Taka,

    "Is Sen. McCain really still pushing the federal gas tax thing? Wow."

    He's surely suffering from Alzheimer's.

    The summer gas tax "plan" that wasn't going to cost any more than a (cough) average government project was a big enough gaffe.

    Thrown tho the wolves after the disaster of Bush, poor Senator McCain.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    It's pretty silly to listen to Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the energy situation since they've all just sat on their asses for the past 30+ years and never took things seriously. Looks like step 1 of their master plan in to position themselves for the blame game, which means average Americans should be prepared to be royally screwed...again.

    Reducing gas taxes and consumption and yadda yadda yadda is all fine and dandy, but as long as speculators keep driving the price of oil up we're all going to be screwed. Oil doesn't jump $10+ a barrel in one day based on consumption factors. What I want to hear a politician tell me is how they're going to remove oil as an investment vehicle so we can stop these massive moves upwards while worldwide consumption declines. The Fed also needs to step in and manage the dollar in the same way other countries manage their currencies.

    That's what I want to hear politicians talk about.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Just In:

    The Senate Democrats failed to get the 60 votes needed to tax the oil companies on their excess profits. The Republicans put together a united front to continue to support the petroleum companies and to continue to protect their profits, over the excessive costs to the comsumer. < :-)

  • 0

    CrunchySaru

    “At a time when we’re fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can’t afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we’re paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil,” Obama said. “That isn’t just irresponsible. It’s outrageous.”

    So true, so true.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    The Empty Suit has now stolen two of hillary's plans.

    Of course, knowing how he originally entered politics that is the obama way.

    RR

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Adaydream

    The thing I really don't get is why the Republicans would so short-sightedly back the oil companies alleged robber baron fleecing of the American public. High oil prices are a symbol and important ingredient contributing to the faltering economy. And killing the Republican brand just as much as the Iraq war. Heck, high oil links the economy and the war in a way like no other.

    A real loser for this Fall. I just don't get it.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    when millions of Americans can’t afford their medical bills or their tuition bills

    Heh, like he would know anything about Americans' hardships. obama is a trust fund baby who grew up in Hawaii, attended private prep schools and attended an Ivy League university under Affirmative Action. But hey, at least his granny is "a typical white person" who provided for him after his mother and spouse-abusing father abandoned him in the U.S.

    RR

  • 0

    adaydream

    I feel the love that the republicans exude for Obama. OOOOOOOO < :-)

  • 0

    ca1ic0cat

    yeah, it's going to be a long summer. and like superlib said, the only thing we're going to get out of it is royally screwed. Or is that too cynical?

  • 0

    WhiteHawk

    If Democrats (and their supporters around the world) have the objectivity to ask themselves how America's Democrat politicians can promise to lower fuel prices (which, along with ending the war in Iraq, was a cornerstone of their 2006 campaigns) while simultaneously sabotaging the American oil industry by preventing them from increasing the domestic supply and increasing their tax burden (which they'll pass on to consumers), Maxine Waters let the answer slip recently during their dog-and-pony show.

  • 0

    adaydream

    WhiteHawk explain

    while simultaneously sabotaging the American oil industry by preventing them from increasing the domestic supply

    When we've got domestic oil fields that the US oil industry refuses to pump from and pipelines that they reduce the size of the pipeline. < :-)

  • 0

    WhiteHawk

    adaydream, your source(s) would be...?

  • 0

    adaydream

    Prudhoe Bay pipeline was reduced

    http://cryptogon.com/20060806_blogarchive.html#115500836133128568

    Oil wells on Gulls Island

    http://www.rense.com/general82/gull.htm

    There's two for you. < :-)

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    His aides said he will provide more details as the campaign goes on

    Heh, just like the world is still waiting to hear john kerry's plan for getting the U.S. military out of Iraq nearly four years after he made that promise during the previous G.E.

    Then again, perhaps obama was denied his "details" because hillary dropped out of the race before he could steal anymore plans from her playbook.

    RR

  • 0

    Eulji_Mundeok

    I've been google-ing "Gull Island" for the past hour and all I've gotten are individual blog posts, Alex Jones-style conspiracy sites and various rants in the comments of some major news articles.
    Apparently: 1)this island is off the coast of Alaska 2)it's so named for the "rare seagulls" that inhabit the island 3)it's claimed that it holds "more oil than Saudi Arabia" 4)oil is apparently not being pumped out of the field either to protect the "rare natural habitat", or to serve the Carlyle Group
    5)Gene Kelly visited Gull Island while searching for Brigadoon

    My brain hurts- can I go now?

  • 0

    Betzee

    The Fed also needs to step in and manage the dollar in the same way other countries manage their currencies.

    It's not a money supply problem. The biggest culprits in the dollar's decline are the federal budget deficit and the trade deficit. As long as foreign governments bought Uncle Sam's debt, in the form of treasury bonds, and foreigner investors put in their money in the USA the dollar could remain strong. But when the outflow became larger than the inflow the greenback began its descent.

    The solution to the first one is straightforward: cut government spending and/or raise taxes. The second is more complex; cheap imports were one of the twin pillars of the post-industrial economy, the other being easy access to credit. On this, all Americans have to look within rather than for scapegoats. As David Brooks, a conservative, observes in his NYT's column today:

    The United States has been an affluent nation since its founding. But the country was, by and large, not corrupted by wealth. For centuries, it remained industrious, ambitious and frugal.

    Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded. The social norms and institutions that encouraged frugality and spending what you earn have been undermined. The institutions that encourage debt and living for the moment have been strengthened....

    Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, put us to shame here in their ability to save (rather than spend). Like those in other countries, Americans are going to have to learn to live within our means as our economy undergoes changes probably akin in magnitude to those which occurred when financial services overtook manufacturing as a share of GDP. We export so little it's difficult to see how we can go that route to close the trade deficit and thereby relieve pressure on the dollar.

    I don't think anyone knows exactly how this will play out. But it would be heartening if politicians acknowledged the problem rather than simply fighting over who should get a tax break. Alas, there's no dialogue anymore just sequential monologues.

  • 0

    Betzee

    oil is apparently not being pumped out of the field either to protect the "rare natural habitat", or to serve the Carlyle Group

    Thank you for your search which rounded up two of the usual suspects which is enough to please everyone, corporations and environmental wackos!

    The left blames greedy, customer-gouging oil companies; the right pillories environmentalists for blocking the construction of new refineries, preventing offshore oil development and opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge....

    Explaining the high price of gasoline at my local pump requires taking into account surging demand for oil in China and India, the falling value of the dollar, the impact of commodity price speculation by energy traders and a whole constellation of factors exerting steady downward pressure on supply. Those include the Iraq war, political instability in Nigeria and anti-American intransigence in Venezuela and Iran. There's also the ever-popular peak oil thesis: As the production of existing oil fields in Russia, Mexico, the North Sea and possibly Saudi Arabia inexorably declines, discovery and exploitation of new sources of oil are becoming steadily harder and more expensive.

    http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2008/05/29/priceofgasoline/index.html

  • 0

    Eulji_Mundeok

    Thank you for your search which rounded up two of the usual suspects which is enough to please everyone, corporations and environmental wackos!

    D'oh!! Punk'd by Salon Media again! (Grrrr....)

  • 0

    Loki520

    adaydream,

    "Please answer me this. Why is ANMR the answer when there are oilfields that are capped and not producing? Why is there oil at Gulls Island that isn't being pumped at all? Why were Prudhoe Bay pipelines reduced from 36 inch pipes to 18 inches? < :-)"

    Oh horse puckey. You actually believe that Williams, the "authoritative" source on this "find" @ Gulls was invited to attend the "we're gonna rule the entire world" meeting where this was discussed when he is not part of the "conspiracy" group to begin with? This "Geologist" uses terms such as the "structure of oil", when the rest of the world's ENTIRE geology community will tell you that a LIQUID has no structure, but rather a "chempical composition".

    Prudhoe Bay - You mean besides the leaks and the dsstructive corrosion throughout the entire pipeline? Reducing the output capability lengthens the lifespan of the equipment currently in place, including the pipeline, all of which is deteriorated pretty much beyond repair and needs replacement. Past output amounts are not an option with the amount of corrosion, and shutting it down completely to repair makes no sense when there is only 2bil, or so, of the original 16bil barrels remaining (by best estimates).

    Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy to make "them" rich. Sometimes, companies like BP, have stockholders they account to. While they don't need to make them rich, they DO need to maintain profit at a certain level for operating expenses as well as profit. A 36" pipe costs a lot more to operate than a smaller one, and that is one way to maintain profitiblity, ESPECIALLY when the resource is 80% tapped out.

  • 0

    adaydream

    B/S

    You folks want to accept the oil corporations explanations, kewl. If you want to think that they are telling you the truth, fine.

    But, I'm a little more open eyed then that.

    Trust oil corporations? Hell No!! < :-)

  • 0

    adaydream

    80% tapped out? Crap.

    We've only tapped into 3% of the oil reserves beneath us. Gull Island has enough oil for the US for 200 years. But it's not baing pumped at all.

    Okay...okay...just to make you guys happier at least have the oil magnets pass out jars of vasoline. Because we're getting a real screwing at the pumps. < :-)

  • 0

    adaydream

    80% Tapped out?

    We've only been using gasoline in great volumes since the 30s, 40s or 50s. Before then we weren't useing it at in volumes we've seen in the past 50 years..

    So in less than 100 years we've used 80% of the oil reserves underneath us? And the world leaders are trying how hard to find an alternative fuel?

    Please, if we had used 80% of our petroleum reserves the geore bush Memorial War in Iraq would be nothing compared to the greedfest that we would see. And the price of petroleum would be $1000.00 a barrel.

    I'm watching the news this morning and certain factions on Wall Street are calling for oil at $186.00 in 2030. If we'd used 80% there wouldn't be oil in 2030. < :-)

  • 0

    adaydream

    http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

    There's a new oil field. We have more oil available, right?

    When will we see it?

    When does it affect the price on the market? < :-)

  • 0

    Loki520

    You keep confusing those two specific fields, which you mentioned, with the reserves, which is MANY more fields than those two. There is a huge difference between those fields and the reserves, of which those fields are only part of.

    The predictions of how much oil was available within those areas was made 30 years ago, and was based on the capacity of oil usage AT THAT TIME. There has been tremendous spikes in the amount of oil used, as well as a severe reduction in refinery's, of which we've built diddly over the past several years. 30 as a matter of fact.

    Your statements all seem to be based on: 1) The numbers tossed out by those same conspiracy nuts who think everyone is out to get them ("it's not faaaaiiiiirrrr") whose numbers don't jive with the leading GEOLOGIST's figures (not the oil industry), 2) A mistaken belief that the oil we currently have, regardless of how much, is the ONLY oil there is. Your statement of "80% of our petroleum reserves the geore..." is predicated on ZERO additional production.

    However the oil industry, and your right on this, should not be trusted to manage OUR future. But it is the CONGRESS that is allowing them to do so.

    -- Though we have more oil in the shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming than there is in the Middle East (800 billion barrels), liberals and environmentalists have made it illegal to touch it.

    -- It's illegal to drill in northern Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or off the coasts of Florida or California. The main reasoning is that the enviro's are worried the footprint will damage local wildlife. But in the areas around the other fields, wildlife numbers have INCREASED. Probably because the animals are, in fact, less hunted in these areas now.

    -- It's illegal to explore the Atlantic Ocean for oil.

    -- It's illegal to explore the Pacific Ocean for oil.

    -- We're not receiving leases anymore to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while China, Venezuela and Cuba are.

    -- We haven't built an oil refinery in more than 30 years and have reduced in half those we have operating.

    -- American airlines are in danger of going out of business.

    -- There's enough natural gas beneath America (406 trillion cubic feet) to heat every home in America for the next 150 years, but we can't tap it all.

    -- We have the largest supply of coal in the world, but it's Germany who is planning to build 27 coal-fired power plants by 2020.

    There is simply no reason or justification for us to be dependent on foreign fuels that we can produce in our country. Do you realize that $2 of every gallon you buy goes straight to FORIEGN companies.

    Yes, the oil industry is full of bastages that want to get rich. Let them get rich, I don't care. But they can do it at .50 per gallon instead of the $2 that we currently pay to the foriegn companies. We can be self-sustaining in oil production, REGARDLESS of how much is left in our current oil reserves.

    And... Iraq is not producing at pre-war levels, and have seen a 28.5 Billion $ profit in just the first 5 months of this year. Those levels, produced by US companies, etc.. WOULD result in lower prices for US citizens, create jobs, and wean us off the dependency we currently have.

  • 0

    Loki520

    That last part should read Iraq is NOW producing at pre-war levels...

  • 0

    DanManjt

    In the end it doesn't matter why oil/gas prices have increased. Americans are not happy about paying more than $4.00. gallon.

    And they will take it out on Bush's party this November.

  • 0

    DanManjt

    As for a world petroleum supplies, you can read all about it here:

    http://www.dani2989.com/matiere1/hubbertpeakoilgb.htm

  • 0

    adaydream

    DanManjt, I have to say that I don't believe your link.

    He says we hit our peak years ago. I disagree.

    He also shows on his graph that future discoveries will only help us ween off oil as our oil reserves diminish. I don't agree. He's giving you the petroleum companies story. I think they lie to the American people and to Congress.

    We have reserves that are capped and aren't being pumped out.

    They haven't built a refinery in 30 years. You think it's all a problem of emissions and not being able to build a refinery that doesn't ruin the atmosphere? Hell no. We can build plants that stay under emissions limits, but then you don't have a supply problem then. You have plenty of gasoline then and damn they'll have to dream up another reason to keep prices inflated.

    It's a pack of lies. < :-)

  • 0

    DanManjt

    I don't think Hubbel was lying. He may have been mistaken, but the notion that there is a limited supply of a resource is hardly an Area 51 idea.

    Something you may consider: although oil reserves may be more, much more, than what many believe, there is the cost-efficiency problem. A lot of the world's oil may be much more expensive to get to than currently used fields.

    But I am wondering one thing: why doesn't Bush release our strategic oil reserve....?

  • 0

    adaydream

    The Congress forced him to stop filling the SOR last month.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14oil.html?ref=business

    < :-)

  • 0

    DanManjt

    Which I cannot understand.

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    If I were Barack Obama's handlers I'd have him slam the legacy of Che Guevara. Photos like this aren't going to help the jr senator's chances in battleground states. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-10-ohio-lethal-injection_N.htm?csp=34

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    Another refusal to endorse Obama

    Delegate’s reversal stuns party Wisconsin Democrat now publicly supports McCain http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=762052&format=print

  • 0

    RedMeatKoolAid

    "ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed"

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all