moonbattery logo

Mar 23 2012

Can’t Afford Gas?

Sky-Rocket-Gasoline

A year ago gas prices weren’t as high as his policies have hiked them now, but the Moonbat Messiah was already offering advice at a Pennsylvania Town Hall meeting for those who can’t afford to fill the tank in Hopey Changey America:

Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

At least he’s no longer asking us to meet our energy needs by putting more air in the tires.

If you voted for Obama, you have no right to grind your teeth. He did promise beforehand that he would make energy prices “skyrocket” as part of his flakey green ideology.

Graphic and tip compliments of ZappaTrust.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on Facebook


  • FrankW

    I am looking for a trade in, bammy for anyone else.

  • whotothewhat

    “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

    FOR THIS!!!!

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Toddler-Flinstone-Car/

  • lao

    U.S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence

    Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.

  • AC

    Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.

    People can’t afford to buy as much gas.

    Are you honestly suggesting it would be positive if gas prices rose so high that the demand for foreign oil was priced out of the market?

    You know, people in Obamunist bread lines aren’t consuming gasoline.

  • cmon people

    Uh oh… the crazies are out in force.

    The President has essentially ZERO impact on oil prices.

    (The best part is that under Dubya, the Roves and Hannitys of the world were very clear on this point. You remember that? I bet at least a few of you remember when it was your ‘team’ that needed to remind people of this fact… hasn’t really been very long…)

    Oil is the most global of commodities. China and India are growing their middle classes massively, and (anyone take an econ class when you were a kid?) what happens to the price of a commodity when the demand curve shifts out? Riiiight.

    Yeah. Want me to draw you the picture? I can, if you need me to…

    And further, if we really wanted to reign in the cost of gas, the next step would be to regulate the speculation in the oil market. ~30% of the price of a bbl of oil is from commodity-market and futures-market speculation. But that would be regulation, which we all know the GOP is against. No paying attention to the rich people gambling with our future!

    I want to know exactly what you think the ‘right’ answer is. Things to keep in mind:

    1) Drilling ANWR (or whatever else) would take a decade or more to bring onstream. Which would in no way affect gas prices in America, at least for years and years. So I don’t wanna hear it, regardless of your opinion on that. Not relevant to price-at-the-pump.

    2) The middle classes of the developing world are only going to get bigger. This problems needs a solution that does not, in fact, involve competing with those emerging countries for finite resources. (You do understand that oil is a finite quantity, yes? What is there, is there, and there ain’t no more after that). Especially when China has so much more cash than we do to play ball on the world market.

    Sooo… what, exactly, should Obama be doing differently? I’ll start, from my perspective:

    I love the investment in alternative fuels – cant hurt, and sure as shit better for us to be the ones to figure out the next step there, than for China to do it and dominate yet another market…

    I like the insistence on at least pretending to think about the environmental impact of a wellhead, pipeline, or refinery before the next Deepwater destroys something for others.

    What do you want to love about a potential President Romney vis-a-vis Big Oil? (Some of his best friends own oil companies, I’m sure…)

  • AC

    Sooo… what, exactly, should Obama be doing differently? I’ll start, from my perspective:

    Drill here, drill now, we need the jobs, dollar support, and security of supply regardless of how it affects the price of a globally traded fungible commodity.

    Allow the rapid and widespread construction of next-generation, passively safe modular nuclear reactors. Creating a stable and cheap reserve of off-peak power is critical, as it signals to the market that PHEV technology is ready for more R&D because the electricity will be there and it will be cost effective. Promising to make electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket” does not instill the public and investor confidence required to develop and adopt technologies which displace liquid fuel consumption. It’s hard to justify a PHEV purchase when Obama is threatening to send electricity rates skyward, which will blow the adopter’s payback period.

  • StanInTexas

    cmon people, or should I call you RUKidding…

    Why is it that actions or rumors of actions in the Middle East affect oil prices overnight, yet our own drilling would not have any impact for 10 years?

    Also, we have been trying to get Liberals such as yourself to let us drill in ANWR for more than 10 years. If you had stopped your ignorant whining back then, we would be enjoying the benefits of ANWR oil RIGHT NOW, with the corresponding lower gas prices.

  • lao
  • AC

    Why is it that actions or rumors of actions in the Middle East affect oil prices overnight, yet our own drilling would not have any impact for 10 years?

    Changing the flow rate of already-producing megafields has an immediate impact, whereas bringing smaller fields online a decade from now can only have a modest (at best) impact in the future, especially when we consider that growing demand from the developing world will more than wipe out any additional supply gains.

    Fields like ANWR are a necessary replacement to existing fields in decline.

  • AC

    Higher gas prices not hurting auto sales yet

    Not yet, because Helicopter Ben keeps printing money and keeping vehicle finance rates artificially low. The lack of affordable gas is manifesting as a buildup of debt.

  • lao

    From the NYT link.

    Simple economics suggests that if the nation is producing more energy, prices should be falling. But crude oil — and gasoline and diesel made from it — are global commodities whose prices are affected by factors around the world. Supply disruptions in Africa, the political standoff with Iran and rising demand from a recovering world economy all are contributing to the current spike in global oil prices, offsetting the impact of the increased domestic supply.

    But the domestic trends are unmistakable. Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. The natural gas industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia.

    National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia.

  • Bagdad Lao

    Gas prices are not going up. There recession has been over for year. Abortions are good.

  • http://14 Cameraman

    I Call B.S. On the OP..When Bush signed off of Federal Oil Leases, the Price of Gas Went from $3.80 a Gallon to Wait for It…$1.80..You liberal Tree Huggers can”t have it both ways..

  • AC

    I Call B.S. On the OP..When Bush signed off of Federal Oil Leases, the Price of Gas Went from $3.80 a Gallon to Wait for It…$1.80..You liberal Tree Huggers can”t have it both ways..

    The market crash did that. Even a full-out drill everywhere couldn’t produce enough marginal supply to crash crude prices from $147/bbl to under $30/bbl.

  • cmon people

    “Why is it that actions or rumors of actions in the Middle East affect oil prices overnight, yet our own drilling would not have any impact for 10 years?”

    Is it possible you honestly don’t understand that???

    If Israel (or the US) blows up Iranian production, that affects global supply in one day. One day. Way easier to blow shit up than build new stuff. Iran controls a huge quantity of developed, mature fields with existing infrastructure. If we blow them up…. they don’t. Thus, futures markets respond with anxiety, and prices rise.

    From the other direction, were we to drill ANWR, we could realize, at absolute best, maybe 700k bbl/day. And that is being generous and not factoring in any potential issues. Which represents an almost-meaningless fraction of world oil consumption.

    So… “Which one of these is not like the other one”? (Youtube yourself some Sesame Street if you think it will help.)

  • lao

    FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn’t drop gas price

    Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That’s what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

    U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that’s not what prices are now.

    That’s because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

  • cmon people

    nice try lao, but facts ain’t gonna make a dent in the stupid around here. bully for the effort, tho.

  • Bob Roberts

    MORE PROPAGANDA FROM OUR LEAST FAVORITE CLOWN:

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:05 am
    —————————–

    The reason we’re “getting closer to the goal” is that the economy has been destroyed and so many people are just sitting around in dark, cold houses (because they can’t afford the heat and light bills, their cars have been repossessed, plus they could not have afforded to fill their tanks anyway) so yeah, our energy demand is down alright.

    Because Obama and the Democrats are strangling our economy.

    Leave it to lao to try to make this look like a good thing!

    FACT CHECK:
    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:48 am
    —————————
    On cue, lao trots out the same liberal propaganda and lies.

    It is true that simply the act of drilling does not bring down gas prices.

    ANNOUNCING A RELAXATION OF THE MANY RIDICULOUS LEGAL BLOCKS (laws, regulations, areas off limits, etc.) DOES BRING DOWN PRICES. Drilling in and of itself does not bring down prices, but having a ready set of wells that, as the dimwit Democrats love to remind us, won’t help the supply and demand issues for 10 years (they’ve been saying this for more than 40 years though, but still people like lao don’t get it, and if you look into it, their statement is YET ANOTHER LIE) WILL help the supply and demand issue. It will help us have, on demand, ability to contribute to efforts to lower any speculation or crisis created spikes in price, any sudden drops in supply. More important, it will free us from our current situation of being at the mercy of those who hate us and use oil to promote and assist terrorists who they send out to kill us.

    It’s ironic that lao’s own post contains the best and most urgent logic for DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW:

    “That’s because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.”

    If we had “drilled here, drilled now” a decade ago THIS WOULD NOT BE TRUE – we would not be at the mercy of the whims of Iran and other troublemakers as we are now.

    I’m not surprised lao and people with IQs as low as his (one can’t really have a lower IQ without being brain dead) don’t get this.

    But, evidence his posts here, his IQ is somewhere between room temperature and permanent coma.

  • Bob Roberts

    If there is anything Obama has done consistently, it is lie about American fossil fuel resources.

    Worse than that, everyone in the industry knows he’s lying through his teeth.

    His typical line is that we have no choice but to throw billions to his cronies, donors and “bundlers” who run “green” energy companies because, according to him, we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves yet we consume 20% of the world’s oil.

    Even the media is beginning to tire of his lying and is calling him on it.

    What we classify as “reserves” is petroleum that can profitably be recovered at today’s prices, without violating the crippling laws, regulations and restrictions imposed by Democrats over the years that put all of our most promising potential fields off limits – other countries don’t use this ridiculous method but rather use a more realistic estimate of what is actually there, and they include everything in their totals.

    In a too typical display of circular logic, since the Democrats have done their best to make ANWR off limits forever, our “reserves” don’t include what’s there and, if this were to change, if all the areas Democrats have made “off limits” were to be considered, our reserves would expand exponentially over night and we would be recognized as a major potential producer of petroleum.

    Everyone in the business knows that every time Obama says we have only 2% of world reserves, he’s lying his A$$ off. One wonders why a more concerted effort isn’t made to call him on it.

    Everyone in the business knows that the U.S. has AT LEAST 60 times the oil Obama claims.

    What other lies is Obama peddling? That he’s bullish on building the pipelines we need to become more energy independent and actually be able to exert signficant effect on prices of oil and it’s derivative products. Yet the most critical pipeline we need now, the Keystone northern segment from Canada, he’s done everything he can to delay and block.

    Obama lies and claims he’s doing all he can to spur U.S. oil production. The truth? Federal oil production represents 7.5 percent of the total oil produced from all U.S. lands in 2011, despite the fact that the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the lands with oil producing potential.

    Despite his lies, the truth comes out. Under Obama, production on federal lands has plummeted, cratered! Oil production on federal lands is down 13 percent this year under the Obama administration. Natural gas production is at a 9 year low.

    Obama tries to paint a dire picture, presenting the usual “peak oil” lies as fact despite what his administration knows: We have 200 years of supply at current rates of use. If we build Keystone we will have much, much more without going beyond North America.

    All Obama had to do was approve Keystone and we would have added 20,000 jobs and 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil, more than twice what was produced on federal onshore lands last year.

    Meanwhile, Obama boasts that he’s cutting the red tape on a pipeline he has no control over!

    For more than three years Obama has delayed and denied permits, now, suddenly, he’s “got religion” and throwing in with Sara Palin?

  • lao

    Uh-oh, stand by for eight posts in a row from bobby. Time for a morning shower and another coffee.

    By the way bobby, when you create links that are your own editorial comments, I have no inclination to even look at them.

  • StanInTexas

    cmon people, I noticed how you COMPLETELY ignored the fact that if you and your ilk had shut up with your insessent whining, that we would have ANWR oil flowing NOW!

  • Tim from TK

    “ao says: March 23, 2012 at 8:06 am

    By the way bobby, when you create links that are your own editorial comments, I have no inclination to even look at them.”

    Translated into English from laoese: I won’t look at anything that might be contrary to the party line, or that contains actual facts vice talking points given to me to parrot.

  • Bob Roberts

    LAO INADVERTENTLY EXPOSES NOT ONE BUT TWO BLATANT LEFTIST LIBERAL LYING MOONBAT LIES:

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:30 am
    ————-
    In this post lao explains that the lies liberals love the most are not true.

    They love to claim Americans are energy hogs, producing only 2% of the world supply yet using 20%. Never mind that the reason our production is so low is because THEY DO ALL THEY CAN TO STIFLE, STRANGLE AND DESTROY OUR OWN ABILITY TO PRODUCE FOSSIL FUELS WE KNOW ARE THERE AND READY TO BE PRODUCED. Evidence his full court press against efforts to drill on this and other recent threads.

    Note that he admits we are a net energy exporter. So it’s not us that use all that energy, we are not the energy hogs the Democrats (and lao) typically lie and claim. Rather we use this energy to produce things that we send out to the world, things the world needs, cannot do without. One KEY THING we produce is FOOD, to prevent STARVATION around the globe.

    And for this the left, the Democrats, lao, continually beat us up and call us evil.

    You have to remember, genocide is part of their long term game plan. Because, in their eyes, we’re all just vermin, infesting the Earth with evil, destroying the planet.

    Funny lao says drilling will not help, but then admits this:

    “National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia.”

    Saudi Arabia routinely controls the price of oil and, through this, the price of derivative products such as gasoline. They don’t do this by announcing they are going to drill or by drilling. They do this because they DRILLED A LONG TIME AGO AND HAVE WELLS READY TO PRODUCE.

    This is why we need to DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW. So we can have wells ready to produce as world conditions dictate, which we can also “turn off” and hold as a new “strategic reserve” that isn’t used by Obama and the Democrats as a political football instead of the vital national resource that it is.

    Even lao admits it, by accident. Even lao admits we COULD control prices like Saudi Arabia does, if we only had the will to DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW.

    Thanks, lao!

  • Tim from TK

    “StanInTexas says: March 23, 2012 at 8:08 am

    cmon people, I noticed how you COMPLETELY ignored the fact that if you and your ilk had shut up with your insessent whining, that we would have ANWR oil flowing NOW!”

    I don’t know about you, Stan, but I have heard that same line of drivel from these slackwits since we were inflicted with Carter. I really enjoy the bit about “it will take 10 years” that have been spouting for the last 30.

  • Barack Hussein Obama

    Of course reduced supply will raise oil prices. That’s why we shouldn’t bomb Iran!

    Of course increasing supply cannot reduce the price of oil. That’s why we shouldn’t drill!

  • Bob Roberts

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 8:06 am

    Uh-oh, stand by for eight posts in a row from bobby.
    ————-
    WRONG AGAIN! I love it when you make an utter fool of yourself – which is basically with every post!

    And you then go on to say:

    By the way bobby, when you create links that are your own editorial comments, I have no inclination to even look at them.
    —————–
    Careful lao, your narcissist megalomania is showing again!

    I’ve told you before, may times (not surprised you STILL don’t get it), THIS MAY COME AS A SHOCK TO YOU, BUT I DO NOT POST FOR YOU! You’ve proven beyond ANY doubt that you don’t have the mental capacity, completely lack the intellectual ability, to understand what I post (both the links and my comments) anyway. I know, you can’t help it. And your resulting feelings of inferiority cause you to lash out at me.

    Poor little lao!

  • StanInTexas

    Tim from TK,

    A decade seems to be the standard Liberal measure of time. We only have A DECADE to act on global cooling/warming before it is too late (said since the 1970’s) and drilling in this nation will have no effect for A DEDCADE (said since the 1980’s).

    Apparently, Liberals think everyone in America is as stupid and incapable of telling time as they are! ;)

  • Bob Roberts

    TOO FUNNY: Our resident clown lao complains that I post too much/post consecutive posts.

    Here is a recap of today:

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:05 am

    Four posts by others.

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:27 am

    Two posts by AC

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Four posts by others

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 7:48 am

    One post by another then two posts, DIRECTLY REFUTING LAO’S POSTS, by me.

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 8:06 am

    So now what’s the score, lao? Who is posting like crazy? HINT: It’s not me!

    Continuing:

    Two posts by others

    One post by me.

    One post by another

    One post by me.

    One post by another

    And this post, which I’m only making to show what a lying clown lao is.

    Which really is obvious to all so yes, this post is indeed gratuitous.

    Where are the “8 posts in a row” you predicted, lao?

    I don’t see them!

    Wrong again, as usual.

    No surprise there.

    Still got a perfect record of NEVER being right or honest lao!

    KEEP IT UP!

  • Einstein

    These punks would have you believe they know a little something about economics.

    These are the same geniuses that think $1B in federal spending is good for the economy, that every $1 in unemployment benefit spending returns $2 to the economy, that 6 years of healthcare benefits is the same as ten years of revenue, that the healthcare bill will actually reduce the deficit, etc.

    They simply have no credibility.

  • cmon people

    “If we had “drilled here, drilled now” a decade ago THIS WOULD NOT BE TRUE – we would not be at the mercy of the whims of Iran and other troublemakers as we are now.”

    I’ll try one last time…

    We ain’t gonna be a world-leading producer no matter what. The Middle East just has more of this resource than we do.

    And that is not even the crux of the argument. Obama has zero effect on this. You want to remove regulation that would pollute the Earth for future generations, but NOT regulate the speculation that actually does drive up prices???

    Well… the good news is there are plenty of sheeple out there representing you. Maybe you can go vote for Butt Grease Santorum. He will pray away our dependence on foreign oil! And if something goes wrong with a pipeline… well, he can pray away the resulting toxic sludge!

    Yeah. Maybe that is the winner in the marketplace of ideas. Guess we will see before too long, here…

  • Einstein

    If production increases dramatically, speculation will be that the price will be at least stable, if not fall.

  • AC

    And that is not even the crux of the argument. Obama has zero effect on this. You want to remove regulation that would pollute the Earth for future generations, but NOT regulate the speculation that actually does drive up prices???

    Speculation isn’t the culprit and if we’re to have any hope of transitioning away from declining fossil fuels we will need abundant energy during the transition.

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

    Read up. The blog is written by a NASA-affiliated physics professor.

    The transition requires investment. Investment requires capital. Energy provides capital, not Helicopter Ben. Fossil fuels are currently our best source of energy. Therefore, fossil fuels are required to power the transition. QED.

  • StanInTexas

    Cmon people, you and your ilk sure sang a different tune when Bush was in office. You laid the entire high gas price deal at his feet and demanded he do something. Curious how the price of a gallon of gas was $1.85 when Obama took office.

    The VERY FIRST PHRASE that disappeared from Liberal’s vocabulary when Obama took office was “On His Watch”. Pathetic!

  • Sam Adams

    Lao is quoting from the New York Times, the same paper that didn’t see Stalin kill 12 million Ukrainians.

    Sorry, your source simply isn’t credible.

    ___________

    cmon people says:
    March 23, 2012 at 8:37 am

    “If we had “drilled here, drilled now” a decade ago THIS WOULD NOT BE TRUE – we would not be at the mercy of the whims of Iran and other troublemakers as we are now.”

    I’ll try one last time…

    We ain’t gonna be a world-leading producer no matter what. The Middle East just has more of this resource than we do.
    ________________

    Let’s temper your remark with a few facts, shall we?

    We have 2 trillion barrels of oil as oil shale. The president (Clinton) put a moratorium on the development of oil shale on federal land. Thus we have an oil resource, bigger than what is in the middle East, which a presidential policy has prevented from being developed.

    Also, almost all the new oil that has entered the US market has come from wells on private land. Almost none of it has come from federal leases.

    Now, to your concern about polluting Mother Earth:
    Every state has its own Department of Environmental Quality. We could eliminate the EPA today, and the US wouldn’t suddenly become a polluted wasteland, since individual states have a vested interest in maintaining their own environmental quality.

    BTW, if you want to rant against pipelines, you should remember that trains, trucks, and ships all can be involved in wrecks and spill their contents.

  • Sam Adams

    AC says:
    March 23, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Speculation isn’t the culprit and if we’re to have any hope of transitioning away from declining fossil fuels we will need abundant energy during the transition.

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

    Read up. The blog is written by a NASA-affiliated physics professor.
    _______________

    AC, I must point out that you are “appealing to authority” with your argument. A NASA-affiliated physics professor doesn’t buy a lot of credibility in my book (you can call me a former NASA, DOE, DOD, NSF contractor if you wish).

    Obviously we can, eventually, transition away from fossil fuels, if we wish, embracing instead nuclear fission and fusion, which can power our economy for thousands of years. However, the best approach will be to let the market sort out which energy source can supply our needs at the least cost, rather than letting politicians set some policy or another.

    If a company can produce a nuclear reactor that is both safe and reasonably priced, then more power to them.

  • wingmann

    They should just play bHUSSEINo’s quote for the next six months on tv saying “under my plan”over and over and over.

    T O O L .

  • Sam Adams

    cmon people says:
    March 23, 2012 at 8:37 am

    I’ll try one last time…

    … Obama has zero effect on this.
    _________________

    So when was Obama lying…when he claimed:
    “Under my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” or

    Obama has zero effect on oil prices? Was Obama simply uninformed/ignorant/lying when he claimed that his plan would make prices rise?

    Or have Obama’s plans been successful and he wants to deny credit?

  • lao

    @8:48 sammy sez: Lao is quoting from the New York Times….Sorry, your source simply isn’t credible.

    Sam Adams says: March 22, 2012 at 7:08 am
    http://http://www.theblaze.com/stories…..etc

    Thanks for demonstrating what source you believe IS credible.

  • wingmann

    The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels in proven reserves, but the amount of undiscovered, so called “technically recoverable” oil, is over seven times that. These figure do not come from a partisan source. They are the government’s own numbers.

    In fact, the U.S. has nearly 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That’s enough to fuel the present needs in the U.S. for around 250 years, according to the Institute for Energy Research.

    The Former President of Shell Oil was quoted as saying the following:

    “The best source for new oil is the world’s largest consumer economy: this country. We could go back to 10 million barrels if we had the permitting that would enable it to happen. We have the oil. There is more oil in this country that we’re not allowed to get at than oil we’re allowed to get at.”

    http://www.inquisitr.com/204368/president-obamas-energy-lies/

  • AC

    AC, I must point out that you are “appealing to authority” with your argument. A NASA-affiliated physics professor doesn’t buy a lot of credibility in my book (you can call me a former NASA, DOE, DOD, NSF contractor if you wish).

    It was my intent to appeal to the liberal sensibilities of our guests, per RfR #4. They play the appeal to authority card all the time, which means they must accept it here to remain consistent.

    The argument is well-reasoned, regardless of who wrote it, but the trolls won’t click and read if they think I’m citing a right wing pundit.

  • AC

    Sam Adams – see exactly what lao did @9:14.

  • lao

    sammy queries: So when was Obama lying…when he claimed:
    “Under my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”

    Factcheck
    Obama wanted higher gasoline prices?

    Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have repeatedly lifted several quotes out of context to allege that President Barack Obama and his administration actually wanted to drive up the price of gasoline, and have succeeded.

    Romney is also off base with his claim about Obama’s prediction that energy prices would “skyrocket” under his policies, and that we are seeing the fruition of that now at the gasoline pump. Obama’s “skyrocket” quote was part of a discussion about cap-and-trade as a means to reduce greenhouse gases.

    On June 26, 2009, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill, by a vote of 219-212. The bill included allowances to electric companies to protect consumers from increases in electricity bills. But the bill died in the Senate. And so, of course, it couldn’t have driven up gasoline prices. Romney has lifted Obama’s quote out of context and applied it to a wholly different topic, gasoline prices.

  • lao

    AC do you seriously want to compare the New York Times and The Blaze?

  • AC

    Irrelevant. You’re much less likely to click and read a solid story at The Blaze than you are a journalistic abortion at the NYT. What I brought up was your perspective.

  • StanInTexas

    Lao, you are correct; the New York Time is MUCH less credible than The Blaze. ;)

  • Sam Adams

    Lao, Obama wanted to put coal-powered plants out of business. Through EPA regulation, he is accomplishing that goal.
    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/02/07/impact-of-epas-regulatory-assault-on-power-plants-february-7-update/
    Impact of EPA’s Regulatory Assault on Power Plants:
    New Regulations to Take 33 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming…

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
    – Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
    More than 33 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (colloquially called Utility MACT)[1] and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2] regulations. Most of these retirements will come from coal-fired power plants, shuttering nearly 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.
    __________________

    The EPA is accomplishing Obama’s goals without the need/benefit of new regulation.

    It was Obama’s DOE secretary that wanted gasoline prices to reach the same levels as in Europe. If he really didn’t want higher gas prices, he would have fired that idiot for making such a statement.

  • AC

    The leading force behind the higher gas prices right now is Helicopter Ben Bernanke.

    Crude oil is a hard asset. The funny money it is denominated in isn’t.

  • Bob Roberts

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 8:06 am
    By the way bobby, when you create links that are your own editorial comments, I have no inclination to even look at them.
    ————
    First, lao couldn’t be more wrong. These are not “my own editorial comments”. They are bits of information gleaned from the link provided. Their purpose is to help others who are looking for information such as that I present in the link. They contain truth, not “editorial comments”. This is why lao won’t click on them – he has a strong aversion to the truth, as conclusively demonstrated here by his every post. So yeah, he doesn’t click on my links. No surprise, no big whoop.

    Second, as I’ve already pointed out, I don’t want or need lao to click on my links – I’m not interested in gaining the attention of disingenuous narcissistic megalomaniacs like him. I’d like to be able to say I could help him but I’m honest about my own capabilities. You see, lao has neither the ability nor the inclination to join us in the real world, so he’s beyond my ability to help as long as HE CHOOSES to be that way. I’m a realist, not a miracle worker.

    And last, who is it that’s posting links composing of “editorial comments”, and BLATANTLY FALSE ONES at that?

    That’s right, lao is, and HERE THEY ARE:

    U.S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence [TRUTH: Thanks to Obama and the Democrats we’re more dependent on hostile foreign sources of energy than ever.]

    Higher gas prices not hurting auto sales yet [TRUTH: The Democrats and Obama are forcing changes in the way people go about their daily lives. Yes, they still need cars, so the plan to force us onto public transport is not working yet, but what cars are they buying? RV sales outfits are going bankrupt, for instance.]

    FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn’t drop gas price [TRUTH: Yes, in the long run, it will. Drilling in and of itself does not do it – everyone knows that. But having the producing well that results from the drilling does!]

    And, by the way, lao predicted 8 posts in a row.

    Where are they?

    I haven’t even posted 8 times TOTAL to this thread yet. Also, I haven’t even posted as many times as lao has yet, and since he made that comment predicting 8 posts in a row, how many posts has he made?

    And he’s still trying to deny and decieve over Obama’s admitted plan to make energy prices (i.e. GAS) skyrocket! Funny the one thing Obama promised that he’s succeeded at and lao is in full spin trying to deny it!

    Hey lao, can you spell HYPOCRITE? We are relatively certain you can’t define it, so here’s a clue: LOOK IN ANY MIRROR!

    lao says: March 23, 2012 at 9:27 am
    AC do you seriously want to compare the New York Times and The Blaze?

    ————-
    AC, I have to side with lao on this one RE: The NYT.

    After all, the New York Times is only good for lining the bottom of cages. It’s so blatantly dishonest that nobody in their right mind would use it as a source and only idiots still read it.

    Evidence lao.

  • Sam Adams

    AC says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:20 am

    It was my intent to appeal to the liberal sensibilities of our guests, per RfR #4. They play the appeal to authority card all the time, which means they must accept it here to remain consistent.
    _______________

    Excellent point, however, liberals are, if nothing else, inconsistent.

    My point is simply that the federal government’s intrusion into the energy market is not only unconstitutional (except for national defense) but is fundamentally wrongheaded. The US public, for example, converted from coal heating for their homes largely to natural gas simply due to market forces, rather than as a result of any federal policy.

  • lao

    sammy sez: It was Obama’s DOE secretary that wanted gasoline prices to reach the same levels as in Europe. If he really didn’t want higher gas prices, he would have fired that idiot for making such a statement.

    Chu was not Energy Secretary when he made that remark.

    Chu’s comment is discussed in detail at the Fact Check link posted above.

    Gingrich repeatedly has cited a comment Energy Secretary Steven Chu made in 2008 about wanting to boost the price of gasoline to encourage fuel conservation. But Chu made that remark before the 2008 election and before Chu became energy secretary. Upon joining the Obama administration, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”

  • AC

    Gingrich repeatedly has cited a comment Energy Secretary Steven Chu made in 2008 about wanting to boost the price of gasoline to encourage fuel conservation. But Chu made that remark before the 2008 election and before Chu became energy secretary. Upon joining the Obama administration, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”

    Chu said what he believes as an academic before the election, then had to say what his handlers instructed him to after he became a political figure.

    Imagine for a moment that Dick Cheney had said one thing about the Iraq War before he got elected then another after he was in office. Your voice would be hoarse from all the screaming.

  • Bill T

    Do you remember when bathhouse barry took his groveling trip to saudi arabia and did the infamous bow to kiss/suck the kings royal scepter. how about a little refresher on OPEC, prior to the imbargo gas was .25-.30 a gallon.
    http://wps.aw.com/aw_carltonper_modernio_4/21/5566/1424964.cw/content/index.html

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/opec.html

    National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska
    http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra.html

    http://archive.suite101.com/article.cfm/everyday_geology/97850

  • Sam Adams

    lao says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Chu was not Energy Secretary when he made that remark.

    Chu’s comment is discussed in detail at the Fact Check link posted above.

    Gingrich repeatedly has cited a comment Energy Secretary Steven Chu made in 2008 about wanting to boost the price of gasoline to encourage fuel conservation. But Chu made that remark before the 2008 election and before Chu became energy secretary. Upon joining the Obama administration, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”
    ______________

    So what changed Chu’s mind? What was the epiphany that he underwent to decide that the US should have low energy prices, compared to those of Europe.

    Also, what policies has Chu instituted to keep gasoline prices low? Has he argued in favor of off-shore drilling? Has he argued in favor of opening up ANWR? Has he come out publicly in favor of the Keystone Pipeline? How many energy grants has he provided to improving finding, refining, or transporting oil?

  • AC

    I think his daddy finally told him the joke about the two bulls on the hill.

  • StanInTexas

    What is interesting about Steven Chu is that he did actually make those statements about boosting gas prices, and after that Obama chose him for Energy Secretary.

    Curious, Lao??????

  • StanInTexas

    Good one, AC!!

  • Bill T

    Chu’s connection to pond scum!
    Malkin: Obama’s Algae Racket
    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/03/21/malkin-obamas-algae-racket/?subscriber=1

  • Bob Roberts

    AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF NATURAL MARKET FORCES WORKING TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE.

    I’ve made good money marketing rare items. If you know what you’re doing you can make a killing selling vinyl records. You know, 33 rpm “albums” and 45 rpm “singles”.

    However, these are one of a class I call “disposable media”. The market knows they are flawed and resource intensive, so the market dealt with it:

    In 1976 Sony gave the first public demonstration of an optical digital audio disc. Two years later they unveiled a product with a 150 minute playing time (SPECS: 44,056 Hz sample rate, 16 bit linear resolution, cross-interleaved error correction). The prototype optical digital audio disc player was introduced in 1979. A new age began and the demise of the vinyl LP and singles was on the horizon – except for purists, who claim (with some degree of accuracy) that you simply don’t get the “warmth” and rich tones of vinyl with a CD. Nor do you get the clicks, pops, scratches and skips, but that’s an entirely different issue.

    From early efforts came innovation – first the DVD, with big gains in storage density and overall capacity per disc. Then Blue-Ray, with even more capacity.

    But we’re still tied to disposable media that still takes a lot of resources, in a sense.

    Or are we?

    Enter the USB drive. Still disposable media, but able to hold (from my own collection) up to 64 GB of data in a tiny package who’s interface is larger than the data storage bit. I decided to take a romantic cross country trip and pre-programmed all the music onto three small USB drives that plug right into my car and provide hours of high fidelity music. It’s true they’re still technically disposable – had my first one fail on me just this month, in fact. But even that media is not necessary.

    For now you can simply download whatever tunes you want from various online sources for a small fee. Previously you had to buy the whole album, or the 45, and get one or more songs you weren’t interested in along with that you wanted. There were and are rare exeptions – albums that are good from start to finish. But, generally, if you paid $15 for a CD you were lucky to get five songs you liked, so you effectively paid at least $3 a song. Now you pay 99 cents per for whichever song you want and you don’t have to get all that energy intensive disposable media with it each time.

    You win, the planet wins, everybody wins.

    But I hear lots of complaints about the lost art of album covers.

    Not to worry – still available, for now anyway.

    Another source.

    Well time to take another, longer walk on the beach to see how the waves are developing so we’ll just let lao complain about how many consecutive posts I’m going to make and about how he thinks I’m bothered by the fact he doesn’t follow my links.

    What a clown!

  • Sam Adams

    For now you can simply download whatever tunes you want from various online sources for a small fee. Previously you had to buy the whole album, or the 45, and get one or more songs you weren’t interested in along with that you wanted. There were and are rare exeptions – albums that are good from start to finish. But, generally, if you paid $15 for a CD you were lucky to get five songs you liked, so you effectively paid at least $3 a song. Now you pay 99 cents per for whichever song you want and you don’t have to get all that energy intensive disposable media with it each time.
    _________________

    That, my friend, was the genius of Steve Jobs. Inventors can change everything, as Jobs changed the music marketing business.’

    Same thing is true in almost every area of technology.

  • Bob Roberts

    Sam Adams says: March 23, 2012 at 10:20 am

    I read a science fiction story once about a genius who was good at figuring out physics but had no clue what to do with the knowledge. The story also involved a marketing genius.

    The concept of downloading files preceded the marketing of downloaded files.

    The first major popularization of file sharing was Shawn Fanning’s Napster (1999).

    Two years later came itunes which was actually the renamed SoundJamMP, also first released in 1999, but not by Jobs or Apple.

    Many times those who popularize a concept get the credit and those who actually come up with it remain in relatively private obscurity, the way we like it, content to simply go on doing what we do and getting paid ridiculous amounts of money for it.

    That way the “occupy” crowd never gets around to camping out on our front lawn making their ridiculous demands and throwing their excrement at us as we pass, like a bunch of monkeys.

  • Sam Adams

    Bob Roberts says:
    March 23, 2012 at 11:32 am
    ____________

    It was Jobs who invented the iTunes store, turning music “sharing” into a commercial success. In much the same way, Bill Gates’ claim to fame was responding to IBM’s request to provide an operating system to accompany his BASIC program, and gaining the ability to license that system to non-IBM PCs. And yes, he did buy that operating system for $50k.

    Unfortunately many of those who work behind the scenes don’t make ridiculous amounts of money. Many with engineering degrees never have a business class.

  • Tim from TK

    “lao says: March 23, 2012 at 9:27 am

    AC do you seriously want to compare the New York Times and The Blaze?”

    Good point, not fair comparing The Blaze to a a paper that is mostly fiction.

  • beforethestorm

    Not mentioned yet is the dearth of refineries in the US and the ridiculous EPA hurdles a company must clear in order to build one, another factor in high gas prices.

  • Robert Peahl

    Couple of paragraphs from the same NYT article Lao referenced but strangely forgot to include:
    “The Bush administration worked from the start on finding ways to unlock the nation’s energy reserves and reverse decades of declining output, with Mr. Cheney leading a White House energy task force that met in secret with top oil executives.” And later in the article:
    “The Bush administration also opened large swaths of the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off Alaska to exploration, granting lease deals that required companies to pay only a tiny share of their profits to the government.”
    The article credits those actions with the explosion of drilling in 2005 and 2006, once oil prices reached a point to make drilling profitable.
    Even crazier, it happened without the government spending any taxpayer money!

  • lao

    The article credits those actions with the explosion of drilling in 2005 and 2006, once oil prices reached a point to make drilling profitable.

  • Robert Peahl

    Yes, companies want to make a profit, go figure. As has been noted on the site before, drilling on Federal lands is significantly lower under the current administration. The overall increase in production, which recently returned to 2003 levels, has come almost exclusively from shale/oil sand production on private land. These processes, along with off shore drilling, are quite expensive to initialize.
    The fact remains that as the third world develops demand for oil will do nothing but increase. Which will create ever stiffer competition for the available resources. By increasing our productive and refining capacity we acheive a stronger world position.
    For this administration to strangle our nation’s ability to reach for self suffiency is unconscionable, and a power play to placate a core voting bloc of the Democratic party.

  • Einstein

    lao says: March 24, 2012 at 6:34 am

    The article credits those actions with the explosion of drilling in 2005 and 2006, once oil prices reached a point to make drilling profitable.

    I think lao just admitted that market forces influence the price of oil/gasoline.

    A random act of honesty.

    Of course, that will soon be redacted.

    Can’t help but admit the truth once in a while when you lie your ass off constantly.

  • BP

    AC,

    You are spot on. As long as the Fed continues to debase the dollar, the price of gasoline in dollars will continue to rise even if we pump more oil. I have yet to see the government correlate the rise of gasoline prices with the fall of the dollar. What is the the cost of a gallon of gas versus gold since 2009?

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial