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

[Mr. Sandman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

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)

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

Today's energy problems are an effect of yesterday's policy.

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

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....

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.