SFA

Okay, let's talk politics

Is it Obama's fault that gas has gone up?

Is it because of Obama that the price of gas is coming down?

Is it Obama's fault that we pay more than we used to?

Is it because of Obama that we pay about 1/2 what the rest of the world pays?

Or...

Is it none of the above?

None of the above

Supply and demand

So that the "Price of Gas" thread didn't turn too political, I have moved Miles' post to it's own thread.

Many policies influence the supply and demand of gas. Less drilling means less supply, which means higher prices ( in a free market). The economy dip means less disposable income, so less usage, to a point. Less industrial usage, due to less production, means less demand. It may not be his fault per se, but he does have some influence over the big picture.

None of the above IMO. But apparently according to what I read in the news a lot of people seems to hold any sitting president responsible for gas prices. I personally think Bush is to blame.. j/k

I blame Dan R.

I agree with Dan the president has influence on the big picture. He also has influence on other policy that affects the way we import and trade. Supply has been controlled and the parties controlling the supply should be controlled. OPEC !!!

IMHO we should have free gas for all the money and lives we gave to the middle east especially Iraq.

I am not interested in a war debate.. its just my opinion and for all you who want to rebut, I won't be responding..

Markets make new highs until they fail to make new high

Markets make new lows until they fail to make new low

then there's JP Morgan and the oil Tankers , Why JP or anyone would allow oil to purposely sit in tanker's in open water just to make a couple extra bucks , is a lot of risk
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/ ... 8320090603

From everything I hear, US demand has been decreasing steadily. From everything I hear, there is no problem with supply.I think Curtis touched on something. There is a lot of speculation in the market and, IMO, price manipulation.

You can attack the price of fuel from a supply side and you can also address the demand. Decreasing demand seems to be a more permanent solution. Higher MPG, more alternative fuels, more renewable resources are the only long term answer. More supply is at best, a short term answer.

But if we're going to increase supply here in the US, why not create more refineries in the middle of the country? Why not build the pipeling to the middle of the country where there is more chance this oil and gas stays in the US? Why pipe it from Canada and North Dakota to refineries on the gulf coast where the fuel can be loaded onto tanker ships so easily?

We're already the number 3 exporter of fuel and oil. It's not a supply issue, at least not domestically.

On the other hand, I spent part of the day with a guy from Montana who was telling me about the oil boom in North Dakota. Producing more oil domestically may or may not have an effect on the price of gas, but it does seem like it would have a tremendous effect on our economy!

Yes, Obama is partly to blame. Commodity pricing is based on supply and demand as well as perception of supply and demand. It is within Obama's control to open up drilling and natural gas exploration and development. He could implement a policy of "drill baby drill". The US is sitting on a shit load of oil and natural gas. If the US decides to exploit their natural resources then the perception about supply will change and price will go down. I would bet OPEC would come to the table and lower prices dramatically to make it less lucrative to drill.

I don't know what argument you can make that would suggest increasing supply would not lower prices. OPEC is able to maintain high prices becuase they control a large part of the supply. If we reduce their percentage of supply and allow a free market to determine prices...

Miles, there is enough oil and gas for hunderds and hundreds of years. Let the free market determine our fuel sources not some stupid Fkd up gov't. All gov't has done is to protect high prices, protect electrical suppliers, protect, protect, protect. Gov't and big business have created most of this mess and it is time to unleash entrepreneurs from all the red tape and regulations that are mostly there to protect their buddies who help keep them in office.

Gov't involvement in free enterprise always produces a Fkd up result. I used to just be a conservative thinker but Obama and the far left loons have convinced me to become libertarian.

we also got the EPA to deal with , there is a diesel cooper that gets 60 mpg , but not allowed in the states because of emissions
Class 8 trucks were getting excellent fuel mileage out of high horse power diesels , 550 to 600 hp geared to do 110 mph
were going down the road 60 mph 900 to 1200 rpm , EPA comes along and whacked the high horse power diesels with more emission's standards and then Caterpillar bowed out of the class 8 market
its almost like the EPA / Government don't want high fuel mileage vehicles


i hear ya Steve , im all for free markets

Obama did state that under his plan energy cost would necessarily have to sky rocket. This is a multi point plan to say the least; using a combination of more and tougher EPA regulations, higher costs of doing business through regulations, permit, etc and subsidizing inefficient fuels such as wind and solar. We are in the middle of a windmill boom with fields of 25 miles not uncommon. The wind is certainly renewable, but sustainable is another story all together. And then the cost of the energy is many times higher than other sources of generation.

Obama has almost killed the US coal industry.

Social divides are a fleeting fancy used to distract from the incompetence of any fiscal responsibility. I love it when career politicians feign disgust and claim that they can fix things. Hell! They are what got us in this mess, Dem and Rep, alike.

I say get rid of every incumbent, even the ones that are pro gun! They are all the problem.

I agree with Dan......clean house. The founding fathers never meant for career politicians. Just for a man of the people to take his turn and go back to his real job. Nothing will change until the voters change the people.

Now there's something we can agree on. The days of Mr. Smith goes to Washington to be a good public servant are over. They go to Washington for power and money and never leave.

I'm going to use Newt Gingrich as an example, not because he's a Republican, bu because he's from Georgia and I know a little about him. How did Newt become a gazillionaire? He was a history teacher at a small, rural, Georgia college. He then started running for office until he got elected. Now he writes books and has a Million dollar account at Tifany's. He kept his campaign going so long, not because he thought he could win, but because he was making so much money campaigning. He was selling books.

Not only that, because of campaign laws, there are amounts your allowed to spend on different things with money from campaign contributions. Well, Newt's daughters happen to own businesses that were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars legally from Newt's campaign funds.

Running for office is a big, profitable business if you lose. If you win, you become rich. Not a little rich, but 1 percent rich.

Almost november, time for the quadrannual event where we all stand in the middle of I-75 and pick which lane we prefer to be run over from.

Politics... ha. I'd rather have someone kick me in the...

On that note have a great holiday weekend guys and don't forget those who sacrificed theirselves for our benefit, and try to forget the takers who will sacrifice everyone for their own good.

My vote is for the guy who proposes this:

1. That any public official be forbidden to be part of a party affiliation after they are elected, as they are simply then employees of the state.

2. That they be forbidden from segregating themselves in groups during sessions. (Would any employer tolerate that his employees segregate themselves and not work together?)

3. That they be forbidden from speaking publicly against other members. (Would any employer alow his workers to publicly berate each other?)

4. That any candidate at anytime should be removed by public impeachment by the people via internet vote.

5. That their salaries be performance based on their ability to create and execute a deficit free budget. So, if this was not achieved, the position would not be so desireable.

From there might be a good basis for a productive government rather than a political one.

One that truly honors those whom we memorialize this weekend.

G

Be carefully Dan,

Someone might nominate you to the ballot.

Either you missed your calling or your trying to avoid something

The bad news is if your nominated, the good news is I'll vote for you.

osd