Republicans Blame Democrats for 'A Nation of $4 Gasoline'

reply to post by Keyhole


There is a bill to prevent this kind of trading. It is going to congess or is in congress right now . It's part of the farm bill. This will stop all trading in unregulated exchages by electronic means. I read that the other day. but have heard nothing about it on any news network.

And then the Saudis come out with this today.

news.yahoo.com...




[edit on 9-6-2008 by SJE98]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by SJE98]

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

... I will say this though. The republicans had 6 years of control of government they had the congress and president and didnt do crap with it. They had the chance to drill but didnt do it why? I ask the same think as far as the first Bush and Regan why were they not drilling up there...

KNOW YOUR HISTORY!!!
Reagan was prepared to approve ANWAR drilling in 1987, he was awaiting an energy bill that would have granted congressional approval for it, but it fillibustered by house dems. The Republican lead congress incorporated ANWAR drilling into their 1995 budget, which Bill Clinton vetoed citing the ANWAR provision as reason for the veto. In 2002 the House approved drilling, while the Senate couldn't get the 2/3rds majority required to break the dem. fillibuster to get the deal done. alaskalegislature.com... 3 other times in the past 4 years the dems fillibustered their way to blocking the drilling. When the Republicans tried to incorporate it into the 2006 budget, which could not be fillibustered, the Dems whined and stated that they would basically refuse to work with the Republicans over anything whatsoever unless the provision was removed. It was removed under said duress and returned as a proposed bill... which was promptly fillibustered.

They tried, which is sure as hell alot more than I can ever say for the Democrats involved in the issue. Remember kids, if you don't get your way, whine about it and then when you're older call that whining "fillibustering" and it suddenly becomes a "legitimate" way to prevent majority rule in a democracy.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

... I will say this though. The republicans had 6 years of control of government they had the congress and president and didnt do crap with it. They had the chance to drill but didnt do it why? I ask the same think as far as the first Bush and Regan why were they not drilling up there...

KNOW YOUR HISTORY!!!
Reagan was prepared to approve ANWAR drilling in 1987, he was awaiting an energy bill that would have granted congressional approval for it, but it fillibustered by house dems. The Republican lead congress incorporated ANWAR drilling into their 1995 budget, which Bill Clinton vetoed citing the ANWAR provision as reason for the veto. In 2002 the House approved drilling, while the Senate couldn't get the 2/3rds majority required to break the dem. fillibuster to get the deal done. alaskalegislature.com... 3 other times in the past 4 years the dems fillibustered their way to blocking the drilling. When the Republicans tried to incorporate it into the 2006 budget, which could not be fillibustered, the Dems whined and stated that they would basically refuse to work with the Republicans over anything whatsoever unless the provision was removed. It was removed under said duress and returned as a proposed bill... which was promptly fillibustered.

They tried, which is sure as hell alot more than I can ever say for the Democrats involved in the issue. Remember kids, if you don't get your way, whine about it and then when you're older call that whining "fillibustering" and it suddenly becomes a "legitimate" way to prevent majority rule in a democracy.

That's funny, it's usually Conservatives whining about how "this is a Republic, not a Democracy"!!

In the end it doesn't matter. ANWAR doesn't have enough in it to make a dent in our consumption whether we drill there or not and the expense of drilling it would probably be higher than the return to the oil companies.

That's one other reason more refineries aren't built--blame Liberals and Environmentalists all you want; fact is oil companies don't want to spend the money to build the things either, especially when they can use the lack thereof as an excuse to restrict supply and spike demand and prices. And of course they'd have to pay people to run and maintain them, and build the infrastructure to pump crude from the tankers, and.... Yeah, I'm sure they're all falling over each other to be the first to plunk down a few billion the second the EPA turns its back.

The oil companies benefit plenty from the status quo, and they flippin' KNOW it.


But, it's better to blame Liberals and their regulations than admit you (oil company shareholders/officers) actually LIKE things the way they are.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Thats why I put question marks because I wasnt sure the HISTORY. Thank you for filling me in. I will say this and I cant find the video but I will that the governor of Montana came out the other day and said hey everyone come drill here we have all sorts of natural gas up here and the only people that are taking up his offer are small independents. He said no big boys are coming over. Why do you suppose this is? As far as the past legislation on ANWAR Ill take your word that what you say is correct but I will say again as I am against all the oil we import because it puts money in other countries pockets and not our own that still is not the cause for the high gas. Maybe you should vote for a guy like Ron Paul instead of McCain so we can have a strong dollar and youll see that gas go below $1.75 a gallon. Vote McCain is a vote for $10 gas because he is going to continue to kill the dollar with his lower taxes and put all our bills on the charge card. Hell at least Obama will raise taxes to at least stop the dollar bleeding.

Here's another article about the rising fuel costs:

Speculation is Pushing Up Oil Prices

Analysts said there are several causes for rising oil market speculation. The outbreak of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States last summer and the resulting turbulence in the world financial market channeled huge capitals into the oil market.

Meanwhile, interest-rate rises in Europe and continued U.S. Federal Reserve rate cuts further weakened the dollar against the euro, which also enticed overseas buyers armed with stronger currencies to the oil futures market.

Faced with increased inflation pressure, many traders also buy commodities such as oil as a hedge when the dollar is falling.

Speculation not only pushed up oil prices, but also increased fluctuation on the world oil market.

It is estimated that speculators control 1 billion barrels of crude oil in future contracts involving a total of 100 billion U.S. dollars. They buy or sell oil futures based on market information, which increased the market uncertainty.

Such speculation could boost oil prices to one record high after another, or cause acute market turbulence as the price bubble finally bursts, analysts said.

It's hard to believe they allow this unregulated electronic exchanges to keep manipulating the price of fuel all around the world.

Re-regulate the OTC electronic exchanges and end these high fuel prices due to "speculators.

It's not like our government wasn't informed or didn't know that this could/would happen 2 YEARS AGO!!!

Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation

A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”

What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.

The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Gas prices did in fact dip as low as $2.19 per gallon, but they did so in January 2007, after the congressional elections. Gas prices also dipped below $2.19 per gallon in November 2005, a full year before the election. The e-mail also fails to mention that prices climbed to more than $3.00 per gallon in August 2006, when Republicans controlled both branches of Congress and the White House.

factcheck.org

As you can see... the cost of fuel skyrocketed under republican control too. This leads us to two possible conclusions:

1) It's a bi-partisan conspiracy
2) There is little lawmakers can do about the oil prices.

So why do so many people blame Bush for high gas prices? It's astounding to hear people actually say the words "I can't wait until Obama becomes president so gas prices will go back down."

reply to post by mybigunit


Dude, after thinking it over for the past couple of weeks I'll probably vote for Paul, but support McCain. I don't exactly live in a swing state (Washington), so I guarantee that Obama will win this state and my not voting for McCain won't help put Obama in the White House. If I lived in a swing state, I couldn't justify casting a vote for Ron Paul strictly on principle. Hopefully the day will come when a man like Ron Paul can run with a legitimate and equal chance of becoming president, but currently I think it is painfully obvious that we don't live in that atmosphere. That's one of those huge risks for a possible big reward scenarios in which the huge risk is 4 years of what I view as utter hell and a huge mistake of an Obama presidency. I don't "like" John McCain, but as I have said before, the devil you know is oftentimes more desirable than the devil you don't, and at least I know John McCain.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Hey when you have to choose between two evils your still choosing evil and this is why Im voting RP and I live in Florida so I am in a swing state. But Im not taking my vote from anyone because I wouldnt even consider voting for the other two. I do feel though Obama will win this election in a landslide as Rupert Murdoch put it but I dont think he will be as bad as you think. Higher taxes yes but with all of the spending that is going on we NEED the higher taxes to stop the bleeding of the dollar. P paid over 40k in taxes this year (for last year) so trust me I pay my taxes but I also am not stupid and I know that this war costs and we may not be paying it in taxes we are paying in the higher costs of everything. So if you want to complain just point them in the right direction and I mean the "right" direction because they have spent 8 years spending money like there is no tomorrow. Yeah real conservatives.

reply to post by jsobecky


Blah, Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah

Same old thing.

You yourself said that prices were driven up by speculation (though I wonder who's bumping that speculation in their favor). So why would you know all of the sudden change it to the democrats?

Quit looking for a scapegoat. If anything, the failing economy is to blame (and I dare you blame that on democrats). But it's not the failing economy. Gas prices are driven up by a loophole in free market economics. It's greed at its worst.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by mybigunit


You won't get an argument from me on that, either. Neo-cons are merely another word for liberal. My issues with Obama are that his higher taxes won't go towards anything of merit, but, rather, will be a wealth redistribution that will go directly into social special interest pockets. I have absolutely no use for forced philanthropy or forced charity, nor do I have any use for working hard so the dregs of the world can reap larger government handouts. So in that regard, if John McCain leaves more money in my wallet than Obama does, I'll be OK with him getting elected.

For the record, I don't believe Obama will win. The voting process in this country is still done behind a closed veil with the abillity to say you voted for one candidate while actually having selected a different one. In other words, what the voter says and what they actually do can be two entirely different things. I believe there's enough of a fuzzy grey area of possible stereotypical fears swirling around Barrack Obama and his wife to make the average non-black voter think twice before casting their vote for him come November. They won't admit this publically because the potential for being tagged racist has become white America's greatest fear, so the polls, which are not done annonymously or with that protective veil surrounding the voter, will most likely indicate we'[re heading towards an Obama victory. This is also why Obama did so well in informal straw polls and at caucuses where voting is done out in the open with anyone paying attention being able to see who voted for who, while Clinton won the more traditional booth voting primaries.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You lost me at Neo-Con is another word for liberal. Don't ever categorize those crazy *#$%#s with me.

reply to post by Sublime620


Much like mybigunit says choosing between evil is still choosing evil, I wholeheartedly believe that choosing between "crazy *#$%#s" is still choosing a "crazy *#$%#." Considering all of the pandering he's done to the environmental crowd, butt-kissing of the global warming idiots, insanely liberal spending practices, and the extremely passive manner in which he orchestrated the Iraq war, George Bush has proven himself to be far more liberal than conservative.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Generally I would agree with you because he is black and people will not vote for him cause of that BUT its not who casts the vote its who counts the vote and when you have Rockefeller and Murdoch and some other very powerful people saying they endorse Obama and saying hes going to win I pay attention. You get to rural areas of certain state of course they wont get his vote but Im just looking at the people who are coming out and saying what they say. I mean look at the attention he is getting in the press. I wish RP got the attention Obama got since minute one but hey just goes to show you. The only person I would of voted for besides Paul would of been Huckabee. I love that guy. He can crack remarks on a whim and I think he was moderate enough without going to far like McCain. If Huckabee would of made it I would of voted for him just because he had a chance even though I like Paul better. Still voting for evil but Huckabee would of been a much less evil than McCain

[edit on 9-6-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by Sublime620

Originally posted by Sublime620
Blah, Blah, Blah Blah Blah, Blah

Same old thing.

You yourself said that prices were driven up by speculation (though I wonder who's bumping that speculation in their favor). So why would you know all of the sudden change it to the democrats?

So the high prices cannot be because of a combination of factors, eh? There must be one magic answer, huh?

You need an education.

Originally posted by Sublime620

Quit looking for a scapegoat.

Pfft. I'll look as much as I want, and post whatever I want. Too bad for you.

reply to post by SJE98


SJ, here's what I wrote to my congresspeople, both Republican and Democrat
"Dear Representative/Senator

Please remove/repeal the provision of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 re the exemption from CFTC oversight of trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges.

Thank you."

reply to post by jsobecky


Right, and how convenient that the answer for you is always the big bad wolf known by you as the democrats.

Has there ever been a time where you just partisan politics aside and looked at something objectively? Just a thought.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Sublime620]

Whether or not we drill in the ANWR has about 1/100 as much to do with oil prices as our current policy in the Middle East does.

This last round of oil price hikes is basically due to uncertainly over whether the US or Israel are going to start a war with Iran. And the both the Iranians and the oil companies that back the current administration are laughing their way to the bank, every time prices rise.

I think this is a propaganda "talking point" that is likely to backfire on the Republicans.

Here is one for you burd. If we had implemented Jimmy Carter's policies in the seventies we would be energy independant today!!

You didn't go back far enough...you only went to raygun.

If we increased our CAFE standards to a very modest and acheivable 35 mpg we would not need ANY foreign oil. NONE!!

The Saudi's (Bush's kissin cousins) say there is no NO SHORTAGE!! No need for oil to be so high

Look at the graph for gold vs oil prices...right on track...the greenback is stumblin and fallin...

MY PREDICTION....gasoline will be down come election time!!! Mark my words I am on the record!!

reply to post by The Nighthawk

In the end it doesn't matter. ANWAR doesn't have enough in it to make a dent in our consumption whether we drill there or not and the expense of drilling it would probably be higher than the return to the oil companies.

Really? At peak production, ANWR could have potentially added 780,000 barrels a day to U.S. crude oil output by 2020, according to the EIA. If crude oil extraction would not have been vetoed in the mid-90s, we would be nearing peak production in ANWR in a few years.

Now here is some irony; the same Democratic Party that repeatedly votes against drilling in ANWR recently voted to stop adding 70,000 barrels a day to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because it increased prices at the pump.

That's one other reason more refineries aren't built--blame Liberals and Environmentalists all you want; fact is oil companies don't want to spend the money to build the things either, especially when they can use the lack thereof as an excuse to restrict supply and spike demand and prices. And of course they'd have to pay people to run and maintain them, and build the infrastructure to pump crude from the tankers, and.... Yeah, I'm sure they're all falling over each other to be the first to plunk down a few billion the second the EPA turns its back.

Hyperion is getting ready to "plunk down" $10,000,000,000 in South Dakota.

Here is what the opposition has to say,
"We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes." I'm sure that will add a little to the cost of opening the new refinery.

reply to post by Boone 870


There's plenty of oil. More oil wouldn't solve anything. The only reason demand is higher than supply is because of the US recession. More barrels are not released due to market speculation that demand will fall on its own.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Sublime620]