15 x's Obama and Top Dems Blame Bush for high gas prices

[spursncowboys]

sQb_4hXLx2Q

[ChumpDumper]

Do you blame Obama for high gas prices?

[JoeChalupa]

I see a conspiracy somewhere.

[coyotes_geek]

democrats = like to play the blame game = republicans

[boutons_deux]

Michael Klare, Why High Gas Prices Are Here to

Think about this for a second and if it doesn’t stagger you, I don’t know what to say: the U.S. military consumes as much oil every day as the entire nation of Sweden.

Or take a guess on this question of the week: How much did it cost Mobil and its partners to build the world’s largest oil-drilling platform, a 1.2 million-ton monster that sits in 300 feet of water in “Iceberg Alley” in the Canadian North Atlantic and is armored with 16 protective “teeth” designed to absorb the impact of those approaching bergs? The answer: $5 billion for the Hibernia platform, which is now producing 135,000 barrels of deep sea oil per day.

In the oil business, this reality was first acknowledged by the chairman and CEO of Chevron, David O’Reilly, in a 2005 letter published in many American newspapers. “One thing is clear,” he wrote, “the era of easy oil is over.” Not only were many existing oil fields in decline, he noted, but “new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically, and even politically.”

if we proceed down the tough-oil path instead of investing as massively in alternative energies, we may foreclose any hope of averting the most catastrophic consequences of a hotter and more turbulent planet.

So yes, there is oil out there. But no, it won’t get cheaper, no matter how much there is. And yes, the oil companies can get it, but looked at realistically, who would want it?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175515/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_why_high_gas_prices_ar e_here_to_stay/

[elbamba]

Historically speaking, any president in office gets the blame for high gas problems. When Bush was in office, its because all his buddies were in oil and he was helping them get rich. Now its because Obama wants to help his buddies in the different Green Energy industries. The President has very little say in the price of gas, but that won't stop a party looking to pin blame on the other.

[Drachen]

I think SnC is looking for this: You are right, they did do that.
Same as it ever was.

[RandomGuy]

democrats = like to play the blame game = republicans

+1

It was stupid when the Democrats did it then. It is stupid when the Republicans do it now.

[RandomGuy]

sQb_4hXLx2Q

So you are saying the current Republican talking point is stupid?

[mercos]

To an extent I blame both presidents for higher prices. Neither has done much to slow down speculation which is increasing prices by a significant margin. Raising mileage standards was a good step for Obama, but I feel he could have pursued it a bit more aggressively. I don't like the big investment in the Volt. Out of all the electric cars out there this one seems to be on the low end of the spectrum. A government investment in a better product like some of the Tesla vehicles would have been more wise. I agree with the principle of the government investing in new technologies, I just feel this administration has not been very good investors. That is ironic considering most of his financial team came from Wall Street.

[coyotes_geek]

How is a president supposed to slow down speculation?

Keep in mind:
1. Oil is a global market.
2. Speculation on oil occurs on foreign markets as well as within the U.S.
3. All it takes for someone in the U.S. to speculate on oil in a foreign market is an internet connection.
4. Speculators move oil prices in both directions.

[RandomGuy]

To an extent I blame both presidents for higher prices. Neither has done much to slow down speculation which is increasing prices by a significant margin. Raising mileage standards was a good step for Obama, but I feel he could have pursued it a bit more aggressively. I don't like the big investment in the Volt. Out of all the electric cars out there this one seems to be on the low end of the spectrum. A government investment in a better product like some of the Tesla vehicles would have been more wise. I agree with the principle of the government investing in new technologies, I just feel this administration has not been very good investors. That is ironic considering most of his financial team came from Wall Street.

Speculation, by the analysis I have read, isn't really affecting the prices as much as you seem to think.

It is adding short-term volatility, but one should be cognizant of the fact that China used to be an an exporter, and switched from this role in 1993.

Since then its economy has grown massively, and it has overtaken Japan to be the second largest importer of oil in the world (excl the EU collectively), and, from what I can reasonably determine, will surpass the United States in oil imports within 10 years, certainly within 20, by any reasonable stretch of existing trends.

When one combines this with likely growth of India, then toss in Africa as well over the next 20 years, and one can get a sense of the immense demand that is going to push prices for oil in the coming decades.

None of this will have much to do with speculators, who can see the writing on the wall as well.

[boutons_deux]

The demand will be there, but the oilcos and traders will suck $100Bs out of our pockets separately from any insufficient supply. They know they can spend $5B for one arctic platform and know it will still pay off.

[mercos]

Speculation, by the analysis I have read, isn't really affecting the prices as much as you seem to think.

It is adding short-term volatility, but one should be cognizant of the fact that China used to be an an exporter, and switched from this role in 1993.

Since then its economy has grown massively, and it has overtaken Japan to be the second largest importer of oil in the world (excl the EU collectively), and, from what I can reasonably determine, will surpass the United States in oil imports within 10 years, certainly within 20, by any reasonable stretch of existing trends.

When one combines this with likely growth of India, then toss in Africa as well over the next 20 years, and one can get a sense of the immense demand that is going to push prices for oil in the coming decades.

None of this will have much to do with speculators, who can see the writing on the wall as well.

I've read analysis that puts speculative increases in oil prices anywhere from 15% to 30%. Demand is the main factor in price, there is no questioning that, but the reason the price is setting record highs for this time of year is likely tied to speculation driven by "fear" of a conflict with Iran in the middle east.

American demand for oil is down. The Chinese economy is slowing. Europe is not doing well. Demand is clearly not the only force at work here. Eventually the worldwide economy will return to pre-recession levels, and then demand will cause the price to sky rocket. That is why developing alternative energy options is so crucial now.

[RandomGuy]

I've read analysis that puts speculative increases in oil prices anywhere from 15% to 30%. Demand is the main factor in price, there is no questioning that, but the reason the price is setting record highs for this time of year is likely tied to speculation driven by "fear" of a conflict with Iran in the middle east.

American demand for oil is down. The Chinese economy is slowing. Europe is not doing well. Demand is clearly not the only force at work here. Eventually the worldwide economy will return to pre-recession levels, and then demand will cause the price to sky rocket. That is why developing alternative energy options is so crucial now.

Bingo on all counts.

The fact that the global economy is so dependent on oil energy will limit any growth going forward, as we shift to efficiency and other forms of energy.

With capital costs so low at the moment, now is the time to get serious about it, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

So you are saying the current Republican talking point is stupid?

I never did get an answer to this question.

[RandomGuy]

bump.

[clambake]

he's not gonna answer that.

remember, there are no civilians in kandahar. lol

[Drachen]

Who cares? The spurs got rid of RJ!!!!

[clambake]

Who cares? The spurs got rid of RJ!!!!

:lol

[coyotes_geek]

Who cares? The spurs got rid of RJ!!!!

It's Bush's fault we got RJ.

[Drachen]

It's Bush's fault we got RJ.

obviously.... LOL.


Sorry, I just couldn't resist posting that in here (and right after my rant about derailing threads) anyway carry on.

[Winehole23]

It's Bush's fault we got RJ.here today, gone tomorrow

[RandomGuy]

he's not gonna answer that.

remember, there are no civilians in kandahar. lol

I kinda wish he would own up to it.

What does it say when one side's advocates can admit to stupid party tricks and one can't?

somebody essentially trying to say "my party can do no wrong" is not exactly the kind of message that one should look for when trying to figure out who will get in and fix problems, IMO.

[coyotes_geek]

obviously.... LOL.


Sorry, I just couldn't resist posting that in here (and right after my rant about derailing threads) anyway carry on.

No apology needed. It was well played. :)