• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Who's To Blame For The Economy via GAS Prices?

Mike

Well-known member
June 6, 2008
Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

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

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
_____________________________________________________

Any cognizant debate? Or are you Dems gonna sit back and hope this slides away? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The problem is that his arguments are all on supply being the only problem- and in 4 sets of hearings, the independent economists, professers, ex government officials, Consumer protection Agencys, OPEC cartel, US oil executives, and independent businessmen and investors (brought in by both parties) all testify that the price of oil is being greatly inflated by the speculative trading that the Enron Loophole allows by removing regulation and oversight on oil and mineral commodities....And all testified that currently there is little or no oversight- even to the point of what is already allowable by law....
Testimony indicates that oversight/regulation of those commodities/trading like we were pre 2000 could/would bring the price of oil/gas down by 25 to 50%...

Thats not saying that opening up ANWAR and offshore won't lower prices some- as they testified it gives the oil companies/speculators/public more confidence of a continuing steady supply...

I personally have no problem with allowing the oil companies to drill- but most aren't utilyzing the leases they already have....

In the hearings, testimony came out that GW offered the oil companies all the old military bases they wanted a couple years ago- to build new/more refineries- they said they didn't need/want them.....Things were hunky-dory for them....
Why would you change things when you're making record high quarterly/yearly earnings :???: One of the oil CEO's testifying a few days ago, said he didn't even know what his last years salary or earnings were :shock: .....
Didn't set real well with any of the Senators....

And How do you and Congressman Blunt explain that the current Repub Party Champion (McCain) has voted against drilling in ANWAR every time- along with favoring putting more land into Wilderness, while opposing any further road development in Wilderness areas and has several times voted to strengthen the Clean Air and Water Acts, along with several other enviromental programs- including criticizing Bush in 2004 for withdrawing from Kyoto :???: And supports California's setting of stricter EPA rules and banning of off shore drilling :???:

RINO- Chameleon- Bought out by lobbyists- or voting his heart :???:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer can you supply links to support all of the above ? Or is this just another one of your I BELIEVE,
You surely can suppy one of your famous CUT and PASTE arguments.
Perhaps calling every one a neocon will help! That is your favorite word of the year.

THE SKY IS FALLING.
Stay tuned for words of extreme wisdom by no other than ------------------0opps folks we must cut in for a few words from our sponser. NO ONE BUT ME COUNTS, the fine folks over at NEOCON is the word of the day.
our fine host MR Oldtimer will now spread words of Gloom and Doom before we return to our regular scheduled brodcasting!!
:D
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
In the hearings, testimony came out that GW offered the oil companies all the old military bases they wanted a couple years ago- to build new/more refineries- they said they didn't need/want them.....Things were hunky-dory for them....
Why would you change things when you're making record high quarterly/yearly earnings :???:
That's not exactly what they said. In fact, it's not even close. The oil companies were more concerned with refineries needing to be near supply or near demand or near pipelines - many of the military bases are none of those.

And they were VERY concerned about refinery capacity. But some of them felt that it would be better and cheaper to be able to add capacity to existing refineries than to build from the ground up with no source of supply nearby.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
In the hearings, testimony came out that GW offered the oil companies all the old military bases they wanted a couple years ago- to build new/more refineries- they said they didn't need/want them.....Things were hunky-dory for them....
Why would you change things when you're making record high quarterly/yearly earnings :???:
That's not exactly what they said. In fact, it's not even close. The oil companies were more concerned with refineries needing to be near supply or near demand or near pipelines - many of the military bases are none of those.

And they were VERY concerned about refinery capacity. But some of them felt that it would be better and cheaper to be able to add capacity to existing refineries than to build from the ground up with no source of supply nearby.

We got an old ex Air Force Base sitting right in the middle of the Williston Basin-- gas and oil on both sides of us- 100's of housing units sitting empty- gas pipeline and proposed oil pipeline coming down right beside it....And I ain't seeing any of those oil folks jumping to build....

Why would you change things when you're making record high quarterly/yearly earnings :???:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Why would you change things when you're making record high quarterly/yearly earnings :???:
Well, I don't know how it is in Montana, but around here, when people are making money, they want to expand so they can make more of it.

Using your philosophy, I don't guess there's any reason for them to step up exploration either, is there? I wonder why the hell they're doing that?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Since this started out as good Repub-bad Dem article-- How do all you Repubs and Congressman Blunt explain that the current Repub Party Champion (McCain) has voted against drilling in ANWAR every time- along with favoring putting more land into Wilderness, while opposing any further road development in Wilderness areas and has several times voted to strengthen the Clean Air and Water Acts, along with several other enviromental programs- including criticizing Bush in 2004 for withdrawing from Kyoto :???: And supports California's setting of stricter EPA rules and banning of off shore drilling :???:

RINO- Chameleon- Bought out by lobbyists- or voting his heart :???:

Here is his time to show his stuff--Its CRISIS time-- so Step forward in another Bush/Kennedy/McCain bipartisan effort-- and work out a deal to get these fuel prices down- in order to give the countries economy a chance to recover...
Go back to the pre-2000 rules/laws on commodity trading-- and force GW to enforce them....
Open up a portion of ANWAR and the offshore areas- giving the oil companies access to more and future supplies- but with strict enviromental guarantees that require they advance with all new technology......
Put a surcharge on Oil Company Profits- that either forces them to put a certain amount % of profits back into energy research and development- or pay the government to do it....

Lets see if he is a statesman-- or a politician......
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
that the current Repub Party Champion (McCain) has voted against drilling in ANWAR every time- along with favoring putting more land into Wilderness, while opposing any further road development in Wilderness areas and has several times voted to strengthen the Clean Air and Water Acts, along with several other environmental programs-

maybe you hadn't noticed but many conservative republicans are not overly fond of McCain nor his policies.. including myself..

it's his darn "independent" traits that piss off alot of Conservative republicans, yet the "independents" and liberals praise him for it..

but given the choice of liberal McCain,.. or ultra liberal Obama..
doesn't seem to be much of a choice... but I won't be voting for Obama..

BTW,... did you notice how the markets reacted to Obama winning the nomination... :roll: :roll: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Old McCain is riding with the majority:
MSNBC computer survey

Should Congress authorize drilling in a small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? * 106506 responses

Yes, America needs all the domestic oil it can get and today's technology makes it safe
42%

No, the refuge is unique and worth protecting; besides conserving energy makes more sense
57%

Can't decide
0.9%


Latest poll I could find...

Dateline: February, 2005
A bipartisan national survey has found that by a margin of 53 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose proposals to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The bipartisan telephone poll of 1,003 registered voters was conducted January 13-17, 2005, by Republican firm Bellwether Research and Democratic pollsters Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates for the Alaska Coalition, an alliance of national and local groups who favor protection for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Question: Should oil drilling be allowed in America’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

53% -- Do Not Allow Oil Drilling

38% -- Allow Oil Drilling

The poll found a remarkable gap in intensity of feeling about drilling: 44% of respondents strongly oppose drilling, while just 25% strongly support it. Only about 10% were undecided on this issue.

"Voters believe there are some places that should simply be off-limits to oil drilling and the Arctic Refuge is one of them," said Celinda Lake of Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates, the Democratic polling firm that co-authored the bipartisan survey. "They believe we have a moral responsibility to protect this unique area, and the abundant birds and wildlife that live there, for future generations."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/anwrsurvey.htm
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Old McCain is riding with the majority:
MSNBC computer survey

Should Congress authorize drilling in a small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? * 106506 responses

Yes, America needs all the domestic oil it can get and today's technology makes it safe
42%

No, the refuge is unique and worth protecting; besides conserving energy makes more sense
57%

Can't decide
0.9%


Latest poll I could find...

Dateline: February, 2005
A bipartisan national survey has found that by a margin of 53 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose proposals to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The bipartisan telephone poll of 1,003 registered voters was conducted January 13-17, 2005, by Republican firm Bellwether Research and Democratic pollsters Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates for the Alaska Coalition, an alliance of national and local groups who favor protection for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Question: Should oil drilling be allowed in America’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

53% -- Do Not Allow Oil Drilling

38% -- Allow Oil Drilling

The poll found a remarkable gap in intensity of feeling about drilling: 44% of respondents strongly oppose drilling, while just 25% strongly support it. Only about 10% were undecided on this issue.

"Voters believe there are some places that should simply be off-limits to oil drilling and the Arctic Refuge is one of them," said Celinda Lake of Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates, the Democratic polling firm that co-authored the bipartisan survey. "They believe we have a moral responsibility to protect this unique area, and the abundant birds and wildlife that live there, for future generations."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/anwrsurvey.htm

you forgot this line,..

"Polls consistently show that Americans want the oil companies to keep their drills out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "Americans are concerned about the irreparable damage to wildlife from drilling, and they know there are places like the Arctic Refuge that are too special to sacrifice."

every poll the "sierra club" has ran has shown that no one in their right mind would drill in anwar.... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
Latest poll I could find...

Quote:
Dateline: February, 2005


since you poll result was a bit dated... I found a new one... Wednesday, June 08, 2005,...funny how people when faced with $4:00 gas are willing to shove a drill rig right down a polar bear's azz..

New poll: Slim opposition to ANWR drilling
A Washington Post-ABC News public opinion poll released today shows that 49 percent of those polled oppose drillling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while 48 percent support drilling. Four percent in the poll had no opinion.
http://anwrnews.blogspot.com/2005/06/new-poll-slim-opposition-to-anwr.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll050607.pdf

and you might notice if you read the article the author is just as biased as yours,.. that is both being biased against drilling...and both not liking the idea of drilling in Anwar...

imagine how the results would be if they were actually impartial..
 

Mike

Well-known member
The problem is that his arguments are all on supply being the only problem-

His arguments are to change as much supply as possible back to domestic, and keep our money at home.

If we changed the word "oil" in his article to "cattle" or "beef", you'd be hopping mad to slow down the imports. :shock:

We should all strive for the independency in a domestic energy and food supply.

Think about it. Or have you become so partisan that your thinking capabilities have shut down. :roll: :roll:

There is no problem with Blunt's thinking . It's the Dems that have a problem..................................................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I guess you can spin in anyway you want to- but even the title of the article suggests that they are trying to say that is the reason for the current high gas prices:

Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

And that is not true....

It is one of the reasons- but according to the testimony in the hearings would only have a slight impact on the current record high prices...Its major immediate impact would only be to give the oil companies a guarantee of future sources....

Most of the testimony came out that 33% of the cost of a barrel of oil goes to production ( which includes exploration and development)- 33% is going to the profiteering of the oil company's and oil cartels ( both thru direct sales and speculating) and 33% is because of the addition of the Enron Loophole and the nonenforcement of the current laws - which allows non-commercial, institutional investors to speculate (using only 6% cash investment)- something that was prohibitted for 78 years prior to 2000......

I am all for developing a comprehensive extensive oil policy-that involves US materials and for the use of the US- that involves sensible drilling in ANWAR, and off shore drilling, ethanol development, coal and coal gasification, wind, solar, nuclear, etc etc- rather than the current Bush/Cheney policy that was made in the secret back room meetings by the oil companies and for the profiteering of the oil companies....

I was rather interested in this article- some of these leases the oil companies have had for 70-80 years now....We have a 1/2 section they have had a lease on since the 1940's.....

Oil companies are crying for new areas to drill on- while sitting on thousands of acres of federal leases they haven't touched :shock: Makes me further think that profiteering and unregulated speculating are playing much more of a role than supply...


MONTANA GOVERNOR IS SITTING ON AN OIL MINE


May 29, 2008 -- HELENA, Mont. - Here's some very good news about oil that the manipulators on Wall Street don't want you to know: there could be as much as 40 billion barrels of crude lying untouched in eastern Montana.

That's billion with a "b" - as in a ball-breaking amount for those speculators who are purposely pushing oil higher for their own selfish reasons.

Who says? Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer does, adding that his state - with fewer than 1 million residents - would be thrilled to bail the US out of its current energy predicament.

While on a visit to Wyoming and Montana, I popped in on Schweitzer, the Democratic governor, who was more than happy to answer my questions about the rumors of huge oil deposits in the so-called Bakken area of his state.

Right now, the US Geological Service estimates that there are 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken region, which also reaches into North Dakota.

"They are always conservative," said Schweitzer, who greeted me in his office dressed in jeans, a white shirt and a string tie. "There will be more. It'll probably be more like 40 billion."

It's so much, in fact, that a discovery like that - or even hints of such a find - could ruin speculators' chances of getting the price of oil much higher than it already is.

In fact, just the knowledge of such big oil deposits - together with a drop off in fuel use because of the recession and the inevitable development of alternative energy sources - might cause gasoline prices to fall substantially in the future.

As it is today, Americans are being cheated on the price of oil. I've been writing about this for the past couple of years and now even a do-nothing Congress is getting concerned, although its ire is misplaced.

Wall Street speculators, aided by cheap money from the Federal Reserve and an ill-informed press, have kidnapped oil in much the same way that the Hunt brothers cornered the silver market in the 1970s.

The only difference is that the Hunt escapades didn't come close to ruining the country's economy. Congress is blaming the oil companies, which certainly are benefiting from the surge in oil prices. President Bush did his part by groveling to the Saudis for more oil - and was offered a token increase, but was essentially turned down.

But maybe if we start digging in Montana, we just might get our national dignity back - and even save our economy.

"We've been drilling out there for 70 years," said Schweitzer of the Bakken area. "People there like new oil production. In fact, the city of Sydney [the county seat] wants to build a refinery. Where else in America do you have a community that says, 'we want to build a refinery in our backyard?' "

Schweitzer, an agronomist with an advanced degree in soil science, has a picture on his office wall of his grandfather operating a one-man refinery.

If you let him - and I did - Schweitzer will explain how oil deposits come to be formed over millions of years. He also explains how the Bakken contains so-called oil shale, which means that the crude needs to be flushed out of tight rock formations.

With improved technology today and higher prices, this recovery method is now very feasible.

"And the nice thing," Schweitzer said, "is it's one drill hole per section." For you city slickers, a "section" is a huge 640 acres.

By comparison, Saudi Arabia has the largest known oil reserves at 260 billion barrels.

[email protected]
 

Mike

Well-known member
World oil production has been basically flat since 2005, at 85 million barrels per day.

Demand is larger than supply worldwide. Do you think Bush went to S.A. to ask for an increase in production just to hear his head roar.

Face it. Dems have held U.S. oil production back. Have held Nuclear Power plants back. Have and ARE holding coal burning back.

They're killing our infrastructure and economy with these stupid maneuvers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
World oil production has been basically flat since 2005, at 85 million barrels per day.

Demand is larger than supply worldwide. Do you think Bush went to S.A. to ask for an increase in production just to hear his head roar.

Face it. Dems have held U.S. oil production back. Have held Nuclear Power plants back. Have and ARE holding coal burning back.

They're killing our infrastructure and economy with these stupid maneuvers.

Well GW's frenchkissing the Arab Swami's must not have impressed them- because it didn't work :???: :wink: :lol: In fact his Arab buddies told him the same thing that all those testifying to Congress did- that raising the production amount will not lower the prices by much - that the biggest problems are the fast shrinking dollar ( that shrinks more everytime the oil prices go up again) and runaway unregulated speculators raping the US public while profiteering by the $Billions.....

Maybe GW needs to go to plan B- like allowing/ordering the CFTC to begin immediately doing oversight and investigating these oil speculators- making their operations open and transparent to the world- and working to put back the regulation that worked for 78 years prior to 2000 by enforcing the Enron Loophole section of the new Farm Bill.....

Remember ol GW was the one who ran on the promise that he would work bipartisanly for the best of America and all of us....Maybe its time he start showing this by working on a bipartisan plan to help the public- rather than his elitist banker and oil buddies....
 

Mike

Well-known member
With the modernization of India, China, and other countries, if you think that flat oil production is enough to meet rising demands you're more stupid than I ever realized.

http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.ASP?STATFILE=_WORLDOILPRODUCTION

Like I said before, when you can't debate, you change the subject.

Did you find Congressman Blunt wrong in his assessment of the Dem House voting record on Energy policy in the U.S.

I'll say it again. This voting record has brought us to where we are today.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
With the modernization of India, China, and other countries, if you think that flat oil production is enough to meet rising demands you're more stupid than I ever realized.

http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.ASP?STATFILE=_WORLDOILPRODUCTION

Like I said before, when you can't debate, you change the subject.

Did you find Congressman Blunt wrong in his assessment of the Dem House voting record on Energy policy in the U.S.

I'll say it again. This voting record has brought us to where we are today.

No he is right on the record- and I don't support their record--BUT the title of the article insinuates that that is the only reason for the high cost today of oil-

Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

And that is flat out misleading and WRONG.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
The title's a question dammit. How can a QUESTION be misleading?

Want to try and change the subject again? :lol: :lol:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
deadhorseot1mm0.jpg
 
Top