The Republican Party has settled on three themes with which to assail President Barack Obama. They are the historically high debt, the lack of employment growth and high gasoline prices. All three are strategically sound because they yield easy outrage from voters. But the most tangible of the three — assuming you have a job — is high gas prices.
With the per-gallon price at about $3.85 and climbing, it’s not hard to imagine averages topping $5 this summer.
The debt is indeed appallingly high, though most of it is tied to the nation’s two wars, the Bush tax cuts and expansion of Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit. The Obama administration is responsible for the stimulus portion, which ties into the second GOP theme: the slow job growth of the last three years.
Nationally, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly above 8 percent, though job growth has continued steadily over the last 30 months. The most recent labor statistics report puts unemployment at 8.3 percent, with 227,000 jobs added in February.
Back to gas prices: What would Mitt Romney do that President Obama has not done? And more important, does a president have the power to affect prices in the short term?
Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama have spoken frankly — and accurately — about the factors that really drive gas prices and about long-term strategies to free the nation from relying on such fuels.
While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney conceded that high gas prices “are probably here to stay,” and he worked on policies that cut consumption. But this year, as the GOP front-runner aims his rhetoric at the president, Mr. Romney blames Mr. Obama’s environmental policies for high gas prices. “You see, when he was running, [then Sen. Obama] talked about how his energy policies would cause energy prices to skyrocket,” the candidate said last month, according to a story by NPR’s Morning Edition.
In 2008, when gas prices briefly hovered in the mid-$4-per-gallon range, then-Sen. Obama said he “preferred a gradual adjustment.” The high price point “is such a shock to American pocketbooks [and] not a good thing,” he said. Earlier in the interview, he said his energy policies would focus on longer term solutions.
“The only way we’re going to deal with these high gas prices is if we change how we consume oil, and that means investing in alternative fuels,” Sen. Obama said. “It means that we are raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, that we’re helping the automakers retool.”
Six years ago, then-Gov. Romney took a similar position, NPR notes. In May 2006, when gas prices spiked, he told a newspaper he opposed a temporary suspension of the state gas tax. Instead, he wanted improved fuel efficiency. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay,” the governor said then.
In another interview, Mr. Romney said, “Look, if we could somehow magically wave a wand over our automobile fleet and replace all of our cars with the current best technology, 35 mpg-type technology, we’d be saving an extraordinary amount of oil.”
Now candidate Romney wants to “aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal [and] our nuclear power.”
For its part, the Obama campaign points out that domestic oil production is higher than at any time since 2003.
Both men know the truth — a growing economy increases demand which drives up prices. Much of the demand is coming in Asia. And both know the best strategy is to reduce the sting of high gas prices by increasing efficiency and reducing use here.
Short of nationalizing oil production or finding revenue other than the fuel tax to fix our roads and bridges, presidents can do little to lower gas prices in the short term. But that won’t matter this summer when pain at the pump becoming politicized.
In regards to this statement:
“Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama have spoken frankly — and accurately —
about the factors that really drive gas prices and about long-term
strategies to free the nation from relying on such fuels.”
Rising “gas prices” are driven not by energy policies, but by monetary policy. It will not matter how much politicians claim they will tinker with energy policies…nothing will bring down the gas prices (or any prices affected by inflation) except sound money. Sound money is within a President’s power, however neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Obama ever mention sound money, nor have they a plan to ensure that we the people get it. Only Ron Paul has made returning sound money to the people a cornerstone of his campaign.
You are right, but that barn door has already been left open and the horse is gone. The US debt, (and unfunded future obligations), is now so large that it can NEVER be paid back. There is only one way to lessen it’s impact and that is inflation. Devalue the money so the existing debt is manageable. Of course, unless we also start having balanced budgets even inflation is only a temporary “fix”.
And the debt was exacerbated by Republican presidents and Congresses, cutting taxes while getting us into UNFUNDED wars of hubris on behalf of George W. Bush. The war in Afghanistan to eliminate al Queada, I agreed with, but we never closed the deal because we had to go to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein (who was never any kind of threat to us). Look how that worked out. Republicans are a bunch of lying thieves with ZERO credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
The real problem is not Democrats or Republicans. It is progressives in both parties who believe that government CAN and SHOULD solve all social problems. Mostly by spending more money. Other peoples money or money they do not have.
Solving social problems saves money in the long run, believe it or not. For example, if we invested the money necessary to establish a single-payer health care system, the average American would pay a fraction of what they now pay for health care premiums, and we would actually have decent coverage. Preventive health programs save billions as well, but they tend to be the first things cut because they don’t show direct profit up front. We tend to look at all spending as being an expense, even if it’s a smart investment that puts us in the black down the road. We need to stop politicizing policy decisions and start looking at the real dollars and cents of it. If Romney was such a shrewd businessman, he would be pushing for a single payer system because it’s the smart money thing to do (and based on his system in Mass, he knows this). But that would make us commies, so we can’t even think about it in public.
If government trying to solve social problems like you claim actually saves money then why is the financial hole we are in getting worse every year? The fact is that every time government intervenes and tries to solve a social problem it creates one or more new problems. Usually worse than the problem it tried to cure and usually did not cure in the first place.
Single payer health care systems do save money. They do so by rationing, either explicitly or with hidden methods.
Preventive health programs do not save money. That is a common misconception based on faulty studies. On an individual basis preventive care does save money because catching and treating a disease or illness early and treating it costs less. But when you add in all the additional costs associated with preventive care, the testing, screening, office visits, etc, there is no net savings.
One good example of this is anti smoking efforts. You save on one end by not having to treat as much lung cancer, heart disease, etc. But when these people live longer they end up costing just as much in end of life care, just not for the same things. And if you add in the cost of providing Social Security and Medicare non-smokers actually costs a lot more than smokers over their life time.
If you want these programs that supposedly save money over the long run then you should be willing to pay for them now. And maybe some of them DO save money. That does not change the fact that they should be fully paid for with NO borrowing or inflation of the money supply.
Regardless, it is both their faults. Including Obama.
Be careful on inflation, we will be back in the 70s again, or will get what is called hyper-inflation.
Perhaps the statement that was made when we were taken off the gold standarded in the 70s the price has been going up, printing more money and the dollar loosing its value might be right on the money.
Might contribute, but certainly not the only reason for fuel prices. It’s (monetary policy and the energy industry) not that simple, but very complicated.
It would seem the BDN is printing a nice photograph to help illustrate their editorials on line. A Maine newspaper but so far no Maine photos!
I find it hard to believe that Americans are foolish enough to think that gas is immune to inflation. The cost of everything goes up over time, even gas. When adjusted for inflation, gas is about where it should be. The problem is the wages are stuck in the early 90’s and gas seems far more expensive. I bought my first car in 1978 when gas was .80 cents a gallon. I earned $5 an hour, which was a little above minimum wage. In order to have the same gas cost to income ratio today, I would need to make $25 an hour. I am fortunate that I do make that and more. I own my own business and work very hard to do it. Most people are not that fortunate. I wonder why gas seems so outrageous? I love how the politicians make political hay over gas prices when they know it is a world market and there is very little they can actually do to manipulate the price. Politicians may be greedy and numb, but they do know enough to keep telling people what they want to hear, as opposed to what they need to hear. Like it is not gas prices that are the problem, it is the wages. How are we going to drill our way out of $5 a gallon milk? Can we open up the SPR and lower the price of bread?
You had it right in the first line. Inflation. If there was no inflation then the fact that wages have been stagnant wouldn’t matter. But inflation is the only real option the government has to deal with the result of yearly deficits and increasing debt.
If your pay is not going up 3% a year to keep pace with inflation, it is the same as taking a pay cut. When you take a pay cut, your money buys less. This results in a lower standard of living. I was always told the American dream was to succeed, not lose ground.
There was a time when people found their economic position was declining they found another way to make money. These days it seems sitting and whining, quoting statistics and waiting for the government to do something is the easy answer for most people.
Some advice: If you need to work two jobs, do that. If you think you can make more money working for yourself do that. You may be surprised if you try it out.
That was the way it used to be in America but it doesn’t seem to be the way anymore. Small business start-ups are at their lowest level ever. It has nothing to do with access to capital it has more to with access to personal initiative. But that is just my opinion.
I have always subscribed to the same theory and have been self employed most of my adult life. I have had employees in the past and always payed them a living wage. I could never stand the embarrassment of having my employees sign up for food stamps or LLIHEAP. There are obviously a lot of employers these days that do not struggle with such matters of conscience. In fact, they wear it like a badge. Not everyone is capable of running their own business. You know that as well as I. It takes a lot of self motivation, being good with money, and just plain drive. As far as the second job goes, with the wages being stuck in the early 90’s, I am not sure that a second job is enough. We may be at the point where a third job is needed, and that doesn’t allow much time for sleep. I would not want to settle for sloppy seconds if one of my employees had to get a second job. There is no way that you are getting any where near 100% from them, they need to save some for their other employer. And no one can keep up that pace for long. Unless you are self employed! lol.
I understand the personal pride angle. I do. None of my people have to avail themselves of the public dole. I also cover their insurance 100% atm $3k deductible. That might change if Obamacare comes on board. There are financial encouragements to drop insurance for employees.
I understand that not all can handle their own business. But, I still don’t understand why start-ups are at our lowest point in history. Its as if personal initiative is sucked out of kids at college. Its like they all come out of school expecting to work for some big corporation or a social service agency.
When my generation hit the market many of us were called “hip capitalists”. There doesn’t seem to be the same sort demographic these days. There are a couple of Art centric small business around downtown Bangor and I wish them well but that drive is not the norm. That is where job growth has been driven in the past. I just don’t see it now.
It is great to hear that you are a conscienious employer as well. Old school. I grew up working in a family business. My uncle owned a diner and I started washing dishes there when I was 10 in 1970. I learned early in life about work ethic and personal responsibility. I don’t think that it is as easy to start up a business these days. These kids have it a lot harder than we did. It seemed like there was a lot more opportunity 30 years ago for a guy with a plan and some hustle. Maybe I long for the old days to much cheesecake?
——————————
I do believe that personal initiative is sucked out of kids in college. The education, (read indoctrination), is filled with progressive ideology that create a mindset that is the antithesis of entrepreneurship. And should I mention the huge debt most college graduates are saddled with making it difficult at best to strike out on their own. Add to this all the new government regulations and rules you have to comply with that makes it necessary to have serious financial backing to start a business.
When you can open a Mac D’s in china, with less red tape then America, that is a problem.
When success is bashed by the president every day, why would anyone want to strike out and open a business in the 1st place.
Hey Cheeseball,
Seen that done that,
I worked an average of 60 hrs a week for 30 = years , weekends holidays ect, ect, ect,
I suppose that I should have carryed a broom with my but and swept the floors while I was at it!
I don’t believe you or perhaps you didn’t work smart. No ones responsibility but yours.
Cause by everyone get a trophy teachings.
What part of “If there was no inflation then the fact that wages have been stagnant wouldn’t matter.” do you not understand?
O.K., I agree. If there was was no such thing as inflation, stagnant wages would not be such a problem. But, here in the real world, inflation does exist and would be almost impossible to get rid of. I guess the question is, do you have any suggestions for how we the people can change this? A ground swell that the government or big corporate America would be powerless to stop?
——————————
We the people cannot change it. Only by electing enough politicians who actually understand economics, (and basic math), and are willing to do what is best for the country long term could this be changed. I do believe that we have lost the country to progressive ideology and only after the present system finishes collapsing is there a chance to get real reform. Problem is that after a total collapse there is an even greater chance of the country becoming a dictatorship in fact if not in name. Most people will jump to support anyone who promises to fix things without pain.
Inflation can be eliminated or at least kept to insignificant levels. But it would require politicians to say “NO” to ALL special interests. No exceptions on either the right or left. A strictly balanced budget, and no increases in money supply in excess of actual goods and services in circulation.
Great points to ponder. Now, how does one get elected if they tell people what they need to hear, as opposed to what that want to hear?
——————————
That is my point. At this point in time I do not believe you can get people to vote for a politician who tells the truth. Even on these blogs a common theme from progressives is how dumb people are who vote for politicians who are not promising more freebies.
Hm… less than a penny a gallon?
Nice catch. I should have eliminated the point.
——————————
If “sound money” means returning to the gold standard and one’s paper money is based on the price of an ounce of gold get ready to join the masses of poverty stricken. Current price is $1676.00. Take the amount of money you have in wages or savings or investments and determine their worth based on the price of an ounce of gold.
I can’t understand how the BDN, or anyone for that matter, can still rationalize support for this President? He has proven to be ineffective for the past 3 years at stimulating growth in this economy, given his lack of in-depth understanding of what drives consumer and corporate economic behavior, so what makes anyone think that things will be any better in a second Obama term? Is Romney a perfect candidate? Obviously not, but he represents a far better alternative than Obama at creating government policies that will result in a more favorable economic climate for this country. Obama’s insistence upon pushing his health care program at a time when this country can barely afford what it has already committed to should be seen as evidence that he is completely out of touch with the realities of this economy. We now need real change, but not the type we’ve been given since Obama took office.
Actually, Obama has correctly pointed out that gas prices are rising because of speculation in the oil futures market. Romney continues to pretend that it’s a supply-demand issue, when in reality supply of oil is higher than ever while demand is decreasing. Romney still thinks we can drill our way out of this problem. He’s wrong, and so is the author of this piece for not even mentioning the futures market at all.
I think it’s funny that the right wing talking heads denounce Obama when he talks about speculation and say it’s a very small factor, but then when pressed on the fact that drilling is at the highest rate it’s been, they state that more drilling with alleviate that speculation.
These are all just smear attempts.
Federal drilling is down:
Clinton-Federal drilling increased by 58%
Bush-Federal Drilling increased by 108%
Obama-Federal drilling decreased by 36%
Only state and private property drilling has increased which obama has nothing to do with, and by the liberal standard=drilling takes 10-20 years to see the effects, nothing obama has done in 3 years can count for a dam thing.
Remember 1995, when all we heard it will be 10 years to see the effect if we drill more President Clinton, well here we are baby and look at the prices.
Enough with your lies and smudged statistics. The 36% figure does NOT refer to drilling itself.
Would you be objective for once and stop parroting all you read/see on frindge right sources?
The numbers you mention I believe refer to new drilling leases. Generally those leases take several years to come online. There has been an actual increase in rigs coming online the last few years. Most of these leases were signed prior to Obama taking office and Obama had no influence on these. However new new leases are down and Obama is responsible for that. We wont feel the effects for 3-4 years.
“Federal” drilling???
The supply has been shipped over seas, which obama and congress can try to fix, but putting a high enough export tax on oil and gas, that the supply stays here.
Richard Nixon deregulated the oil industry. Since then oil has been a commodity like Corn Wheat and Soy. Commodities are subject to rapid spikes and dips as commodity traders get spooked. The price of oil is now worldwide so keeping the oil here would not drop the price, and as you have mentioned there is no current shortage, so a export tax would do nothing positive for our economy.
I do not imagine you said the same thing when prices rose before. Will you say that when it is $5.00 a gallon
You are partially correct that speculation in the oil futures market does impact gas prices. But what drives that speculation? Concern about the “future” supply of oil, which is extremely volatile given the uncertain nature of the Middle East. That’s where reducing our dependence upon oil from the Middle East and increasing supply from friendlier regions can help to moderate the oil futures market.
I believe the more favorable economic climate that Romney would create is only going to work for the 1%. The middle class will speak in Novembers election. The GOP has become a radical party being led by extremest.
We can have health care, clean energy, and a strong middle class by refocusing on what has worked in the past. Fair taxes, an end to wars and government for the people should be our goals.
The Democrats are not extemist? You must be kidding. Obama Healthcare is farce, look at the economy, he doesn’t know anything about foreign policy. We need to get him out before he starts 2-3 wars of his own.
Obama does not speak for the middle class, but only for a fringe element on the far left of this country. Romney was a Republican governor in Massachusetts–no one could possibly win that job in that state if they didn’t appeal to moderates who are in the political center. A 2nd Obama term would create irreversible damage to this country, and I believe that moderates will soon begin to recognize that, once Santorum and Gingrich go away.
This would logically ring true, the problem is your logic is
flawed by non-factual talking points put out daily by the extreme right. After
the legacy of Bush one wonders how anyone could support the same highly
illogical ideological extremism put forth by these reprobates of democracy, known
as the Republicans. Spend some time drawing out Venn diagrams that represent
the past 40 years of Republican dogma, or backup to the 051 logic course and
you will understand why the 2012 election and the following will relegate the extreme
wing to meaninglessness for a many, many years.
If logical enlightenment comes to the extreme wing it will be analogous to being struck between the eyes with a ball peen hammer, a blinding light of realization that will come too late to save them from their own demise.
Well why don’t you look at the past 40 years of Maine being in the democrats control, seems like we get the same product.
Gravity explains this phenomena, everyone knows crap flows downhill,
Maine being a state and all means we’re at the lower end of that pipe, not the other
way around.
No one can deny that we’re still scraping from our shoes road apples that fell off the crap wagon driven by that pseudo cowboy from Texas ??
I’m not sure what it is that you’re talking about? It’s actually much simpler than you make it out to be. If we over-centralize basic services under government authority, we will cause the current standard of living for middle class American citizens to further deteriorate. Government is an inefficient vehicle for delivering services. Yes, with respect to health care, it may provide free basic services to the minority who currently have none, but the price paid for that program will be to destroy the high quality of care that the middle class has enjoyed for many past generations.
Who wrote this garbage?
Does the editorial writer even think to study the issue, examine talking points from both sides, and apply basic logic and established economic principles to a subject?
Do I even need to answer my own questions….
Because that’s not what the article is about. It’s about Romney and Obama flip-flopping on the issue of gas prices. It usually helps if you read before commenting.
The first 4 paragraphs were a rehash of various talking points having nothing to do with Romney or Obama or even the subject of the editorial. Liberally sprinkled through the rest of the article were more talking points and almost nothing that showed any real understanding of the issue or economics.
got one word for ya it will explain everything LIBERAL
In 1973, this Nation got it’s first real big taste of the oil problem. There is a finite amount of oil, and an increasing world-wide demand. At that point, almost 40 years ago the Nixon administration responded by deregulating oil. That put this product in a speculative market. At that point in time, the public or private sector could have acted. We could have built “multi-fuel” cars which ran on several different types of fuel. We could have (inexpensively) shifted over to natural gas which is cheaper, more abundent, and widely available here in the USA. we could have stopped using Diesel for our trucking fleet, power plants, and home heating.
We did none of those things.
The price of gas went down, the big companies stopped building small cars (which they couldn’t give away) and we cruised into 1979 where the second big shock slapped us down. Iran which supplied the USA with only 3% of its crude refused to send contracted shipments, and the price of gas at the pumps doubled in a week. Once again we had the choice of doing something. Once again we passed. Reagan took office, Iran started (secretly) dealing with the USA and gas prices went to their lowest level since the first gas crisis. People stopped buying small cars, they wanted larger and larger vehicles, and some of the 1980’s trucks got as little as 7 miles to the gallon.
and on and on the story goes. multiple opportunities to do something. very little action by either the public or private sector. To illustrate the lack of progress I offer my 1954 Studebaker which got 25 miles to the gallon, and seated 5 people comfortably. 1954 that is almost 60 years ago, and we have gained about 9 miles a gallon for a similar sized car…. Are you folks embarrassed yet?
Now we have another opportunity for change. We can build a car to run on any of the classic fuels (which are still available, or we can do a Marshall plan-style push into a new era where crude plays no part. Most vehicles on the road today can be changed over to natural gas (about half the price of gasoline) for a price less than $400. Would you pay $400 to drive for half price?
Please supply a link to information where I can switch over a vehicle for less than $400. I would really be interested if it is both possible and practical. At this point I doubt both of those however.
I did the job myself with little effort and $60 convertor. The big cost was for the tank, and the fuel line.
I suggest you put “Auto” “Natural gas” and “Conversion” into your favorite search engine, and you will get the results you want. There are over 1000 links.
Sorry Harry, but I do not believe you. Tried all possible searches I could think of. Least expensive conversion kits I could find were in the $400 to $600 price range and these appeared to all need extensive extras to actually do the job. Not to mention the cost of the tank. Most tanks are $1600 and up for a new one and that has limited capacity. Used ones are less expensive, still several hundred dollars and at that price they only are legal for a couple of years.
Nearest source for CNG appears to be in Massachusetts. If you are lucky enough to have natural gas at your house you still need the compressor to be able to fill the tank. Suitable residential compressors all appear to cost several thousand dollars. And take hours to refill the tank.
Actual commercial and LEGAL conversions appear to cost from $6,000 to $12,000 and up…. And they are limited to a very small number of vehicles.
Supply an actual source for that $60 converter. And for a legal CNG tank and other necessary parts to keep the total under the $400 you claim.
According my brother and brother-in law both work on oil rigs, say there is and will not be a shortage in many life times to come, and they were drilling and capping wells by the dozen, and in the 70s their ships were parked off the coast 3 miles or further because there was no place to unload the oil, causing a false shortage.
Of course, when gas prices were sitting at $4.35 during the glorius summer of 2008, in the last year of the reign of George W. Bush, Republicans (correctly) made sure to tell us that George W. Bush had no control over the world price of oil. Now that someone else, of a different party, with a funny sounding name, is in the White House, they want to put the full weight and responsibility of gas prices on President Obama. Simply put, they are either ignorant or hypocritical. Even if we started drilling today and the wells came in tomorrow (generally takes 5 or more years to begin producing), the US still does not have the refining capacity to deal with increased production having closed over 50% of the refineries that were in place in 1981 (then 301, now 149). We are consuming less oil, oil production is at a record level for all time, oil companies are making record profits, and the Republicans filabustered a bill in the Senate that would have stripped those same oil companies of the subsidies they are getting at our expensive. Of course, leave it to the party of “personal responsibility” to point the finger of blame at someone else. What more can we expect from the Plutocracy Party?
That spike in prices in 2008 was a short term event due to a lack in gasoline refining capacity. GWB actually responded to rising market prices during his administration by opening up leases for drilling. That had an immediate impact on pricing.
Actually the spike in prices had more to do with the Bush policy of devaluing the dollar, and the fall in prices was almost totally due to the failing world-wide economy.
“Refining capacity’ was a straw man used by the indrustry to try to get rules for building such facilities relaxed.
The last major refinery built in the US came on line in 1977 in Garyville, La. There have been several small capacity refineries come on line since but most of those are “boutique” operations. There have a been a couple significant upgrades most notably at Norco, La and Corpus Christie, Tx.
So, in reply to your “strawman” suggestion, you are incorrect. In referring to refining capacity, I am talking about refinery swings in grades of production rather than total capacity. The 2008 shortage was the result of significant swings in supply among grades of fuel. Once that supply issue was addressed, pricing was relieved. The continuing drop in gas prices was due to the drop in oil futures due to the recession. The fact that all of this occurred at the point of the “perfect financial storm” is more of a coincidence than anything else.
Refining capacity is decreasing again. Check the Wall Street Journal (the conservative daily Bible).
Bush was blamed day in and day out by the liberals, look what happens when you have an oil man in the white house, now we hear the president has no power over oil prices., dam short memory you have there.
Raising the gas prices is one way to influence the election. Do not discount the big oil clout. With Obamacare fiasco and raising gas prices, voters on the edge will probably go for the new guy instead of the incompetent or whatever, incumbent…
Gas prices are tied to speculated oil futures pricing and the big oil companies have little to do with it.
ALL crude is sold on the world market (with the exception of (banned Nations) it would be very hard for even the largest oil companies to raise or lower prices significantly. ExxonMobil’s profit on each gallon of gas is 5 to 7 cents and this has not changed in 30 years.
Oh PLEASE, I hear that all the dam time, that is why a gas station in Canaan was almost .40 cheaper then the other stations, and my brother makes a 6 figure income working for an oil company, and exxon/mobil make record net profits in the billions every quarter. what a bunch of bs, 5-7 cents profit.
Most Gas price differentials are due to middlemen changing prices. R.H. Foster, Dead River, and others.
If your brother works in an oil company he knows how much profit is gained from a gallon of gas. The record profits are from volume sales. Do you (or your brother) have any idea of how many gallons of fuel ExxonMobil sells each year?
The sheeple want an easy target…. Don’t be one of them.
my step sister also sells gas at her business, so I know what profits wan be made where.
Is that why Exxon/Mobil’s profits for 2011 were in the 30 to 40 Billion dollar ($30, 000,000,000 – $40,000,000,000)? I don’t see how you can say that these companies, that are posting record breaking profits, have no control over how much their product costs the consumer, or how you can still believe they are still making the same margins as they were 30 years ago.
I sorry, I do not fill my gas guzzler with crude oil. So Mobil has one price per gallon, Exxon another price and BP another. A local guy low balls all of them by 2 cents. We are still getting gouged at the pump whether some hun yuck is speculating that north sea oil is going for $110 a barrel or Saudi gold is $109 a barrel.
What about the greatest threat to all of us? Wall St’s
continued greed and avarice. They have manipulated oil over $100 a barrel. This
is an enormous threat to the world’s economy! If you don’t know it; listen up!
Oil refineries all over the world are shutting down! Refineries in Hawaii, St
Croix, Houston, Philly, Delaware, other places in the US, and Europe are
shutting down! They are shutting down for three reasons (1) The price of oil is
too high. (Thanks speculators on Wall St!) (2) There is a glut of oil and
distillates and no place left to store it. Some refineries are turning into oil
storage facilities. They can make more money from renting tanks to banks and
hedge funds than they can make by producing product. (3) Due to the European
oil embargo on Iran, Iran is selling oil at a heavily discounted rate to Asian
refineries who will sell refined products to US cheaper than American
refineries can make them. Bottom line; WE ARE SO SCREWED!!! Repeal the
Commodities Modernization Act of 2000 and the Financial Modernization Act of
1999 and get speculators out of the Commodities markets!
How did you determine that the Republicans have settled on anything regarding the themes of a fall campaign?
Short of nationalizing oil production or finding revenue other than the fuel tax to fix our roads and bridges, presidents can do little to lower gas prices in the short term. But that won’t matter this summer when pain at the pump becoming politicized.
What was the BDN stating when GWB was President?
If Reagan had Obama’s current record, the dingbats would be going berserk.
>>>>>
If this is an opinion poll, why doesn’t the BDN blame Lepage, they love to blame him for everything wrong in the world.
“The Obama administration is responsible for the stimulus portion”
Actually Obama is responsible for the Bush tax cuts because he lobbied to keep them not once but twice. He is no agent of change and his presidency has been a failure. I agree, there isn’t much to vote for on either side in this election but Obama is a known and he is a failure.
As for high gas prices, Obama hasn’t even tried to do anything to stabilize prices. Whether he could or not is debatable, but he has not even tried because it is seemingly unimportant to him.
Obama flip-flop nooooo a Democrat does not do that? or do they?
The funny thing is, in 2008, before Obama took office, Faux News ran a story, or a series of stories, explaining that the president has no control over gas prices. Funny how Faux News changed their tune when it was suddenly a Democrat in charge, it’s an election year, and they need someone to blame. It only strikes me as mildly insulting.
The funny thing is when all the Liberals complained about the price, with Obama it is hardly a flicker.
Liberals complained about gas prices, and now they are not? Could it have something to do with the GOP claiming for years that “The president has nothing to do with the price of gas”? Maybe the point finally sunk in. Then, when they suddenly decided, that because the president is a democrat “No, the president CAN control gas prices, an he’s not doing enough!”
I should of put a semi-colon and said , “with Obama there is hardly a flicker from the Liberals.
Bush didn’t want higher gas prices, Obama does. Big difference. It is quite easy to enact policies that will increase the price of gas. It is much harder to lower the price.
Are you talking about George “Dubya” Bush? The guy who’s friends and family made billions of dollars from the surge in oil prices? Ya, I can see why you would think he wouldn’t want to drive the price of oil up as far as it would go, because we all know most people don’t want to make billions of dollars…
Note to left wing media: you can support low gas prices and support higher gas mileage. This is not a flip flop. I would love it if my SUV got 80 miles to the gallon. However, government regulations prohibit car makers from making cars that might get good milage because it reduces safety standards.
It is also not really a flip flop for the president to say he supports lower gas prices – this is actually a bald faced lie.
Say a Republican president gets elected an the gas prices either stay the same or goes up who will you blame than ?
With just ten minutes of independent research one can determine that gasoline prices are not controlled in any way by the president or even the congress. It is a global commodity. This issue will affect most of us profoundly yet few will bother to learn about the market dynamics. This allows the kind of grandstanding you will see on the campaign trail.
If we are ever to have good leadership that reflects our national conscience and sentiment, we first need to educate ourselves on the issues. This is a requirement for a democracy to endure. Read up folks. It is your duty. The media will not make a good surrogate for your own research. They will tell you what they want you to know and nothing more.