Something to think about when you head to the polls this year
 

Complete crap.

National gas prices averaged over 4 bucks a gallon near the end of the Bush Presidency. The only reason they've "increased" so much under Obama is because of the recession he inherited which caused the price of oil to plummet and took gas prices with it.

Please.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, his promise of hope and change is and was complete crap..... As is the fact that we can't muster a competant candidate to challenge the current administration.....

Your frustrations about the shambles that is the GOP has nothing to do with the article linked by the OP which is still complete crap.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the first twenty-six months of President Bush’s first term in office, the price of gasoline increased by 7%. At the end of his second term, the price had decreased by 9% from the time he took office (adjusted for inflation). During the first twenty-six months of Obama’s term in office, the price of gasoline has spiked over 67% with no relief in site.that was Feb 2011...looking A LOT worse now

this is a gas station right around the corner from the Whitehouse...probably where Obama gasses up his 6mpg Eco- Chariot...right?

Scott, why don't you please explain why the chart you posted has a big gap, and how the timeline of that gap relates to the rest of the chart?

Are you guys all idiots?

-spence

if you simply read..... the graph compares Bush's first 26 months and Obama's first 26 months, hopefully we will not have to suffer a second Obama term...you can figure out what the gas prices were when Bush left and what they were when Obama took office because Obama took office right after Bush...right?...did I really have to esplain' that ...really?....try closing the 7% to 67% gap(actually...use current gas prices just for kicks, the ones right outside the Whitehouse, I'm sure Obama uses Premium..so that's $5.69)...that should be fun..


At the end of his second term(Bush), the price had decreased by 9% from the time he took office (adjusted for inflation).

I don't think Obama will ever be able to claim this:)

hey Spence, Zimmy...have you picked up one of these yet?

Apparently the hottest new item among Obamaistas and at Democrat headquarters....:uhuh:...I'm sure they'll figure it out and put the correct flag on top..

apparently, when some military veterans expressed some concern the Democrat Headquarters chair stated

“It leads me to believe that it’s not about the flag.” “Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president.”

that sounds exactly like the kind of thing you guys would say:uhuh:

Since you just posted a link and didn't provide any actual content, opinions or comments... Just out of curiosity, what steps do you think the US president could have taken in 2009 to reduce the price of gas in 2012 but has neglected to do so?

I'm not talking steps that will reduce prices in the future, but what can any president do during their first couple years in office to repress prices within the first 26 months of office.

Aside from the commentary not having an ounce of substance and is merely a partisan-fueled rant, the graph that's the highlight of the should actually hurt the case trying to be claimed by the author. A reasonable person should hopefully be aware that no president has immediate control of gas prices - especially when you're looking at the first 26 months as your window.

To play devil's advocate, a case could be made that fuel prices in the first two years of a presidency are sculpted by the previous president's policies. A case that would make Bush look even worse since it could be argued that Clinton set him up with a solid price structure and then it all went to hell under Bush.

Mr. Sandman, I hope you come back and participate in the discussion as opposed to your post being a drive-by.

are you suggesting that Obama policies since taking office have not influenced the price or gas/oil?...the only way he gets anywhere near the Bush 9% adj. for inflation at the end of a second term is if prices return to the level that he just mocked and ridiculed Gingrich for promising...you can talk all you want about whether he or his policies are to blame, it doesn't matter...he, or any other president will suffer the blame, this one just doesn't appear to have any interest in changing the trend:uhuh:

I guess we're really fortunate they didn't ram Cap and Trade through Congress along with Obamacare...or it might be really ugly:)

Quite simply, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Just as no direct policies under Bush held prices down at the beginning of his term or caused the sharp incline that happened at the beginning of Obama's term.

There are far too many factors at play to put the price of oil onto any individual *country's* shoulders, let alone a specific leader within that country. I think OPEC, oil companies, speculators and refineries have substantially more control on the price of oil than any other factor - many of those factors have some form of control from (what I call) pump-to-pump - control across the entire supply chain from the minute it's pumped out of the ground to the moment I pump gas into my car.

I will partially "credit" Obama with the $10-25/barrel increase associated to the tensions with Iran. The reason he gets only partial credit is because it's a continuation of terrible US policy that started before him and he's chosen to sustain.


As a side note, the above is opinion formed as a derivative of too much reading. An opinion that I'm sure has a few holes in it.

Fixing Spence: Your frustrations about the shambles that is the GOP has nothing to do with the shambles that is the Democratic Party.

Either way we are not getting the government we need but we are probably getting the government that we deserve.

Johnny,

Well, Obama ran on creating a green economy...remember? The entire green jobs thing. Where is that? You know, reduce the mid east demand, and create jobs in the US by developing green tech. This effort has fallen flat. Grade: F

He could have reduced prices by creating more domestic supply. Drill here. (short term solution)

He could have created a massive infrastructural change to move to DOMESTIC natural gas. Creating jobs and reducing foreign petrol demand. Natural gas goes for $2/gal in this co and $16 in Europe. We have over 200 years of KNOWN supply in this country right now. We are exporting Nat Gas.

He could have forced thru the pipe line deal from the north but canned it.

He could have changed some of the methods speculators determine the price of fuel in this country. (wall street reg) (reduced meaningless volatility)

He should have created long term programs that create a technology PUSH and consumer demand PULL
A) Incentives to colleges and univ to develop innovative energy technologies (you have to start here)
B) Create incentives for more kids to study science and engineering instead of investment banking
C) Expand new electric technologies research op's, battery research, smart grids, fuel cell tech, ect... (long term solutions)
D) He could create all kinds of incentives for consumers and business to move in the right direction



He could have done SOMETHING...ANYTHING but has done NOTHING.

Stop covering for him that he inherited all these problems and we are in great shape...every president has these inherited problems. When the republicans said this in the past the dems argue that Well..it doesn't matter he was president at the time". What did he do except put us under a mountain of debt that we will never get out of and bail out fat cat bankers?

If you think drilling domestically is a short-term solution, you're sorely mistaken. If Clinton had expanded drilling availability, we *might* be benefiting from its effects now. It's been consistently reported that any drilling efforts would take at least 12-15 years before we started to feel the benefits.

There is no short-term solution. Hell, currently, there's no long-term solution because no politicians (executive or legislative) want to take the major steps towards developing energy independence due to a lack of wide-spread political support.

I'm not defending Obama on his record with regards to energy prices. Like I said before, while he has had little influence on the short-term prices, he's not done much to help us over the longer-term either.

Today's energy problems are an effect of yesterday's policy. Obama *will* be on the hook for our energy prices during his next term because he did not take steps in the past 3.5 years to hold prices down.

However, looking at the change in prices during the first 26 months in office (like your drive-by post here and in the boating section, which I can't see how a political post like that still exists in there) as a metric for a President's energy policy is not only insignificant but also demonstrates ignorance to how complex the energy situation is.

which was to claim that expanding domestic drilling was a waste of time then.... because we wouldn't see the benefits from it until now...right? :) guess we just keep repeating our mistakes....


hey Zim...worth a read

"But the economic news has not been all that striking. We had a quarter in which economic growth reached 2.8 percent. We’ve had two months with job growth of better than 200,000.

Peachy. But in 1983, the year before Ronald Reagan’s reelection, the gross domestic product rose 8.9 percent not just for one quarter but over the whole year. There were two months when job growth was 729,000 and 660,000.

But some fundamentals are unlikely to change. Voters’ focus is on economic issues and on these most oppose the president’s policies. His media cheerleaders who thought his February numbers meant the election was over were fooling themselves."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...michael-barone

I'm all for drilling in Alaska, if it means elimination of fracking. We should have started drilling 15 years ago up there but the price per barrel didn't make it worth it.

We're approaching a tipping point. Not sure if you've seen my post in one of the other threads where I talked about the price per barrel of oil that is a limiting factor for some alternative energies. Things like bio fuels, solar panel and geothermal heat sources aren't the cheapest option until oil hits $130-140/barrel. We're getting there and once we do, there will be a push for more buses running on LPG, government vehicles running on bio fuels and more consumers will buy hybrids.

Alternative energy sources were talked about the last time oil got high, and it's going to happen again.

Probably not...but only because Obama's tenure isn't likely to end in a MASSIVE RECESSION.

Your assertion is so disingenuous I'd have to say you're guilty of outright deception...in other words a liar.

-spence

ohhh...you are really nasty :) there's still some time for O's tenure to end in a MASSIVE RECESSION....don't give up hope....n' change...n' stuff

Nice one, Palin :love:

That $4.28 record under Bush doesn't count? Not that it was his fault, anymore than this is Obama's fault. But, you can't fix stupid.

I'm pretty sure I'm on record as saying that the president isn't the sole determining factor in oil prices although I just pointed out in that poll, he's absolutley held accountable by a majority of Americans as though he were....O is on record as desiring higher gas prices and energy prices in general, has pursued policies which push prices higher and has an Energy Secretary that publically yearned for 8-9 dollar gasoline...it's part of the agenda, if he'd pushed a little harder on some items we'd really be screwed right now... I don't think they care how they get there as long as they get there...his policies in their totality will force prices higher whether it's now or later...slow or fast....another president with a different agenda...not so much... which is why prices returned to reasonable levels under Bush....Obama inherited cheap gas too:uhuh: he has no intention of allowing it to return to reasonable levels...it's not in the agenda


the nastiness is spreading...."pent up anger"?

Financial Times...pretty funny

"In exchange for 48 hours of priceless photo opportunities, Mr Cameron offered to support the US if it released oil reserves to lower fuel prices, even if Britain thinks the move would be a largely futile short-term gesture."

Yep, you have nothing to offer.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

Rosetta Stone?

Kraut(not unbiased) nails it as usual....wanna talk about the President's dishonesty Spence? ....remembered the quotes just for you:)

""""""Yes, of course, presidents have no direct control over gas prices. But the American people know something about this president and his disdain for oil. The “fuel of the past,” he contemptuously calls it. To the American worker who doesn’t commute by government motorcade and is getting fleeced every week at the pump, oil seems very much a fuel of the present — and of the foreseeable future.



But the event that drove home the extent of Obama’s antipathy to nearby, abundant, available oil was his veto of the Keystone pipeline. It gave the game away, because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally, and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.

Obama boasts that on his watch, production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural-gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama."""""""""

Seaweed in Your Gas Tank - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

No quotes here (except for one paraphrase) my take only...

1. Where was most Keystone XL pumped oil going to end up? Refineries in the gulf, and then onto the world market (likely Asia). The shovel ready jobs would have been around for a bit, then gone again. This would not have dropped our price at the pump.

2. Obama should say Oil is the fuel of the past and present. I agree it is still a huge part of the present and near future. but if we continue to think of it as the fuel of the future, we will continually face these challenges.

As has been said, we need more Natural Gas. Fracking is controversial, but not as bad as people thing, and environmentally, as a whole, a lot better than oil sands like Athabasca. In the next decades, we need to be transitioning to gas and beyond. I heard a good quote this morning, to paraphrase, 'oil is a 40 year problem, not a 3 year problem' fossil fuels reamin a part of the solution in coming decades or more, but we need to keep looking forward. part of that is increased fuel efficency for sure, in cars, heating, power etc... all of which save most people money, and cut down on our usage and reliance on foriegn imports from geopolitically unfavorable regions

A lot has been made re: algae. newt got a good laugh out of it (so, fine Newt, no Biofueled rockets to the moon) BUT...

if free market is always the answer, and buisness knows what is best, why is Exxon spending 600+ Million on R&D with biofuels?!?! (Chevron and others spend big bucks too...) because we need to start moving forward!

Yeah, that whole increased US production and stuff during his term points directly to his conspiracy against low gas prices. I think it is great that almost the entire year, the year before he was elected, gas was $3.50 to $4.28. Prices collapsed at the end of the year, when oil fell to $40 a barrel, (no doing of our own) and a price which was unsustainable. Now the prices are almost as high as where they were 4 years ago under a different president, and according to the Republican nominee, it is Obama's fault... American's who can't effectively analyze multi-variate problems, but rather go with their own "common sense" fall right behind the piper.

By the way... keystone, like Bryan said, would do nothing for gas prices. More scamming by the leaders on the right to sway the minions.

you answered your own question I think.....

you are too funny :rotf2:

multivariate is one word.....:)

That the price per barrel is likely to stay high and we need to look to alternatives? It certainly makes more sense than using food (corn) to make fuel.....

Remember that 8year old comment you made before? :biglaugh:

It CAN be one word, but it is standard practice and completely acceptable to hyphenate it.

for example:
Scalable Multi-variate Analytics of Seismic and Satellite-based ...vis.pku.edu.cn/research/publication/Vis10_earth-small.pdfYou +1'd this publicly.

or

MATLAB By Examples: Multi-variate Model Fitting using Taylor Series Method

:love:

Funny, you can't seem to refute a point nor can you get a highly paid pundit to do it for you.

Obama went on to say...

Anyone disagree with this?

Regarding the Keyston XL pipeline, it's far from a no-brainer.

Yes, it will create "shovel ready" jobs...but only for 6-12 months. Most of the steel for the project has already been manufactured...in India.

Transcanada's own research for the US Government indicated the pipeline would actually INCREASE gas prices in the mid-west US and not have any real impact on domestic energy security.

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state...pt.pdf#page=99

And perhaps worse, the company has already been bullying landowners to sign easements or be sued to have their land taken under eminent domain.

All the Administration asked was for a new route that wouldn't threaten an environmentally sensitive area. Initially they said it would be impossible...then they agreed to do it.

If anything, Obama isn't playing politics and is evaluating the cost/benefit tradeoff for the Americans involved. You know where that oil will be going? To refineries in the Gulf Cost where it will be EXPORTED.

-spence