Not necessarily in that order
Published on April 30, 2008 By Island Dog In Democrat

I caught a little bit of the Bush press conference on energy and the economy yesterday, and I also caught some of the Rush Limbaugh show afterwards.  Love him or hate him, he managed to make some valid points on the reality of energy prices and the economy.  I also heard the democrats reaction to Bush's speech, and once again confirmed how clueless they really are.

One of the biggest arguements from the democrats regarding the economy is "record profits" from the oil companies.  This is the basic campaign operations from the democrats, make business and corporations out to be the "bad guys", and ignore everything else.  They follow this up with using words like "greed" when referring to oil companies. 

One of the proposals that Bush supports is a "holiday" on the federal gas tax.  Hillary Clinton and John McCain also support this, but Obama does not.

Here is what Chuck Schumer (D) had to say about that:

"We believe there ought to be a gas-tax holiday, but Big Oil ought to pay for it,

Just amazing.  So "big oil" should foot the bill for a holiday for gas taxes, what country does Schumber live in?  I think he would make a good addition to the administration of Hugo Chavez.  This just supports the notion that democrats have no plan to solve energy prices......just blame "big oil" and make them pay for it.

The reality is nobody is going to solve this so-called "crisis" anytime soon.  We are not going to stop consuming large amounts of oil, nor are we going to seriously embrace alternative forms of energy no matter who is in charge in Washington.  The fact is, we need to start drilling for our own oil, we need to start buildling new, more efficient refineries, and we need to start building nuclear facilities as well.  Does anyone want to take a guess on who opposes all of that? 

Democrats complained that drilling in ANWAR would take several years to see some kind of affect.  Well true, but how many years have democrats been opposing this?  How many new refineries have been built in the United States lately, and can anyone tell us why?

When you hear Obama or Hillary telling you that they will solve the gas "crisis", just understand that they won't if they don't grasp the basic realities of energy and oil comsumption.

 


Comments
on Apr 30, 2008

Unfortunately there are no easy answers.  I would say consume less but many people have no choice that commute to work etc.  Also I believe that Bush is against the gas tax holiday.  The fact is that the gas tax pays for maintenance on roads and bridges.  After the bridge collapse in Minnesota, I think people would understand how important that maintenance is.  They are all politicians and talk is cheap.  It's easy to say they would make up that money from somewhere else until the somewhere else you're taking the money from finds out about it.  It's easy to say that you will tax the gas companies to pay for the tax holiday but that won't happen without a fight. 

on Apr 30, 2008

Schumer is a prime example of life after death!  HIs brain died 20 years ago.  His mouth has not recieved the signals yet.

on Apr 30, 2008
The inconvenient truth of the matter is that energy production is not an issue. We already are producing more than enough oil to meet our needs. The reason why it is so expensive is due to inflation, so increasing oil production will not have an impact. See article to be posted shortly.
on Apr 30, 2008

See article to be posted shortly.

Looking forward to it.

on Apr 30, 2008
he managed to make some valid points on the reality of energy prices and the economy


Doubtful, Rush has been inarguably proven to be incapable of anything shy of justifying oxycontin addictions and mocking Parkinson's patients.

"record profits"


You deny that there are record profits?

One of the proposals that Bush supports is a "holiday" on the federal gas tax.


Gee, Bush wants to cut funding for repairing highways to save families twenty five bucks total for the summer.

just understand that they won't if they don't grasp the basic realities of energy and oil comsumption.


Like the reality that Bush has been proven to be a clueless moron that cares about nothing more than increasing the profits for his oil buddies, preferably at the expense of the working poor in America.

Remember it is GW who claimed his oil connections would allow him to lower the cost of gas. It is GW who claimed that gas at 2.50 a gallon under Clinton constituted proof of Clinton mishandling the economy. It is GW who is now claiming that he had no idea that gas prices were forecast to go that high and it is GW who is now claiming he is blameless for the gas prices.


on Apr 30, 2008

You deny that there are record profits?

Where did I say they didn't?  They did....so what?

Gee, Bush wants to cut funding for repairing highways to save families twenty five bucks total for the summer.

LOL.  Did you get that from the DNC?

Remember it is GW who claimed his oil connections would allow him to lower the cost of gas. It is GW who claimed that gas at 2.50 a gallon under Clinton constituted proof of Clinton mishandling the economy. It is GW who is now claiming that he had no idea that gas prices were forecast to go that high and it is GW who is now claiming he is blameless for the gas prices.

LOL.  The typical rants of a Bush basher.  I forgot Bush has the magical power to lower gas prices.  You liberals need to learn how reality works.

 

on Apr 30, 2008

The inconvenient truth of the matter is that energy production is not an issue. We already are producing more than enough oil to meet our needs. The reason why it is so expensive is due to inflation, so increasing oil production will not have an impact. See article to be posted shortly.

The price of a commodity is based on supply and demand.

The demand for oil is high while the supply is limited. Therefore, the price goes up.

Inflation isn't some magical fudge factor.

If you want oil prices to come down, you have to increase the supply of energy. Period.

 

on Apr 30, 2008
I forgot Bush has the magical power to lower gas prices.


Then why did he not only claim he would lower the gas prices but argue the fact that the gas prices were 40% lower than they are now was the fault of the Clinton administration?
on May 01, 2008

Draginol
If you want oil prices to come down, you have to increase the supply of energy. Period. 

Prices will stay high until consumers refuse to pay and lower the consumption. Supply is not limited, it's based on getting the highest price versus the amount of product supplied.

I welcome this as it makes people more aware of the downsides of fossil fuels forces car manufacturers to offer more efficient cars, makes more people use & demand public transportation etc. In US the price of fuel is still ridiculously low compared to Europe so I don't see the reason to whine. Change the SUV, change to diesel, don't drive, turn off the lights. Fuel cost is not going down ever again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on May 01, 2008
Prices will stay high until consumers refuse to pay and lower the consumption. Supply is not limited, it's based on getting the highest price versus the amount of product supplied.


That really is the key. WHile the immediate supply of oil can be increased marginally, the only power that consumers (and thus politicians of all stripes) have, is when they reduce demand.
on May 01, 2008

Then why did he not only claim he would lower the gas prices but argue the fact that the gas prices were 40% lower than they are now was the fault of the Clinton administration?

When exactly did Bush say he would "lower" the gas prices?  You keep an obsession with Bush, but this is beyond him.  Why haven't we drilled in ANWAR?  Why haven't we built cleaner refineries? 

on May 01, 2008

The price of a commodity is based on supply and demand. The demand for oil is high while the supply is limited. Therefore, the price goes up. Inflation isn't some magical fudge factor. If you want oil prices to come down, you have to increase the supply of energy. Period.

Yes, I agree 100 % on the basics of supply and demand. What I'm saying is that presently there's a surplus of supply that out-strips demand considerably. Going by the numbers, most economists agree the price for a barrel of oil should be between 60-70 dollars a barrel, but instead we're paying 119. Around election time we might see it drop to 90 I'm guessing, and that's being pretty optimistic.

Inflation is gauged by a couple of key factors- namely the price of energy and the price of food. Both of those are skyrocketing despite a surplus of supply of both. Therefore, we are undergoing very significant inflation right now.

Increasing production (supply) of oil will only alleviate things in the short term because once we increase the supply, we have to maintain that level of production. If it drops after that investors freak out, loonies like me start screaming that the end is nigh and all sorts of tin-foil hattery will occur stating that we've reached peak oil and are now in the stages of a long, slow decline in oil production.

The key in my mind is to admit that oil is a finite resource (yes, nature makes more but it takes a heckova long time to do so) and start a national manhattan project or marshall plan to shift to other methods of energy and transportation. Like better means of electricity generation (yes, nuclear is indeed one of them), electric cars (which in cost comparison to gas cars work out to an equivalent of well more than 100 miles per gallon).

Of course this won't happen overnight. But if we can gradually start phasing out these older oil hungry technologies, that will reduce demand. Reduce demand, everyone wins.

Bush a couple of years ago stated that America was addicted to oil. This is true. His solution then was that we need more oil. Going by that logic, if you have a crack addict the thing to do is to give them more crack! The logical, sane thing to do is work on weaning ourselves off the oil. Yes, if we quit cold turkey it will kill us. But like with any addict, the thing to do is gradually decrease the dosage or give them a substitute. This does not mean that people have to start driving less and live in cold houses. It does mean we should look at replacing the vehicles we drive and how we heat our homes (or cool them)

on May 01, 2008

at the expense of the working poor in America

I live pretty close to the working poor, no shortage of SUVs in many of their driveways.

Meta
Views
» 626
Comments
» 13
Category
Sponsored Links