Some Democrats Shifting on Drilling?

[red states rule]

Looks like some Dems may be feeling the heats from the voters






Maurico Morales feels the pain whenever he puts gasoline in his car. Seeing prices nearing $4 a gallon, Morales wants the United States to look into any measures, including domestic drilling, that will make filling up less draining on his wallet. “If we have the resources to do it here, why buy it from other countries?” said Morales, who works in New Canaan and commutes daily from Bridgeport. “We’ve got to keep trying.”

Morales appears to have an ally – although a lukewarm one -- in his congressman. Speaking to reporters from Main Street Connect on Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes said that he would support domestic drilling for oil, but with reservations. “I’d rather see [the U.S.] drilling for [natural] gas than for oil and for coal,” he said.

Citing last year’s massive oil spill on the Gulf Coast, Himes said he opposes additional offshore drilling in sensitive areas. He’s also against drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area.

“I do think we need to move away from [drilling], but give me a choice between getting it here and importing it from Saudi Arabia and I’ll take getting it from here any day,” he said.


http://www.thedailynewcanaan.com/news/himes-would-drill-us-wants-alternatives

[Psychoblues]

I see no shift at all other than a closer relationship with T. Boone Pickens and natural gas. Republicans and Democrats alike have been espousing domestic energy independence since the early 70's but we are far worse in that respect now than we were then and that is not even planned in the long or short run to change. All this malarkey about domestic drilling solving our oil/gas problems is just that, malarkey.

It's the job of the politicos to comfort the trembling masses.

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

I see no shift at all other than a closer relationship with T. Boone Pickens and natural gas. Republicans and Democrats alike have been espousing domestic energy independence since the early 70's but we are far worse in that respect now than we were then and that is not even planned in the long or short run to change. All this malarkey about domestic drilling solving our oil/gas problems is just that, malarkey.

It's the job of the politicos to comfort the trembling masses.

Psychoblues

It might not solve it entirely, that is true. However, it would lower our dependence on outside sources for oil & gas, so that we don't have to jump every time something starts to happen in the Middle East, and limiting the power of OPEC to jack up the price of oil.

Up here in VT, some businesses are starting to put up solar panels, not because of any govt reg or anything, but on their own, so that they can lower their monthly electric costs. Now, most can't get enough panel coverage to go 100% solar, but even 25% is better than 0%. I think this is more the path to energy independence that we need.

[Psychoblues]

It might not solve it entirely, that is true. However, it would lower our dependence on outside sources for oil & gas, so that we don't have to jump every time something starts to happen in the Middle East, and limiting the power of OPEC to jack up the price of oil.

Up here in VT, some businesses are starting to put up solar panels, not because of any govt reg or anything, but on their own, so that they can lower their monthly electric costs. Now, most can't get enough panel coverage to go 100% solar, but even 25% is better than 0%. I think this is more the path to energy independence that we need.

DS'72, I hope you are correct but I suspect that you are not. I've read too many reports that indicate a rather hopeless forecast for any adequate future domestic supply of oil as to achieve any level of true independence. I am in full support of the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu and his observation that only a full change in biofuels technologies and alternatives are the answers. Fossil fuel is a finite resource. Our future lies in cheap, replaceable and environmentally friendly fuels and energy resources.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Amazing how Dems were "concerned" about the working class when gas hit $3/gal when Bush was President

Now he hear nothing from them when a Dem is President

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tbzzeuYJteY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Psychoblues]

Amazing how Dems were "concerned" about the working class when gas hit $3/gal when Bush was President

Now he hear nothing from them when a Dem is President



Batshit, pig boy.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Dems energy plan or lack thereof

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SJNUbuIsW-c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DragonStryk72]

DS'72, I hope you are correct but I suspect that you are not. I've read too many reports that indicate a rather hopeless forecast for any adequate future domestic supply of oil as to achieve any level of true independence. I am in full support of the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu and his observation that only a full change in biofuels technologies and alternatives are the answers. Fossil fuel is a finite resource. Our future lies in cheap, replaceable and environmentally friendly fuels and energy resources.

Psychoblues

Again, like I said, it doesn't have to get us off foreign oil entirely at first, but anything that lowers our dependence is a step in the right direction. Alternatives are coming along nicely, but they're not nearly where they need to be to take over.

That said, we should be using a combination of the two, building down gas and coal power plants to be replaced by Nuclear plants, as well as solar and wind power where they can be used. At the same point, hitting new oil and gas pockets will get us at least improve the dependence situation. Increase Hybrid production, while decreasing non-Hybrid production.

As i've said, Obama did make a good move by switching the Fed fleet over to hybrids. This should also be done at the state level, to further cut down on fuel usage. As well, the electric car should start seeing a return, along with solar-powered cars in the near future as solar cell tech improves. This does not, however, help us now.

We seem to have come to a point where we do not suggest alternative ideas, just rail at each other about the flaws present in any plan put forward. This is contrary to goal oriented thinking.

[red states rule]

http://strangepolitics.com/images/content/140497.jpg

[Psychoblues]

Again, like I said, it doesn't have to get us off foreign oil entirely at first, but anything that lowers our dependence is a step in the right direction. Alternatives are coming along nicely, but they're not nearly where they need to be to take over.

That said, we should be using a combination of the two, building down gas and coal power plants to be replaced by Nuclear plants, as well as solar and wind power where they can be used. At the same point, hitting new oil and gas pockets will get us at least improve the dependence situation. Increase Hybrid production, while decreasing non-Hybrid production.

As i've said, Obama did make a good move by switching the Fed fleet over to hybrids. This should also be done at the state level, to further cut down on fuel usage. As well, the electric car should start seeing a return, along with solar-powered cars in the near future as solar cell tech improves. This does not, however, help us now.

We seem to have come to a point where we do not suggest alternative ideas, just rail at each other about the flaws present in any plan put forward. This is contrary to goal oriented thinking.

That is exactly what WE need, DS'72. WE can and WE will work it out despite the naysayers, idiots, and slackers that just gum up the works.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

That is exactly what WE need, DS'72. WE can and WE will work it out despite the naysayers, idiots, and slackers that just gum up the works.

Psychoblues

Terrible way to tak about your feloow libs PB

http://strangepolitics.com/images/content/141311.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

That is exactly what WE need, DS'72. WE can and WE will work it out despite the naysayers, idiots, and slackers that just gum up the works.

Psychoblues

You and RSR, though, are part of those gumming up the works. You're both so intractable on your beliefs, that you cannot work together toward a common goal. Even in my above statement that you clearly agreed with, you took it on the offensive. It's an exact parallel to the Democrat and Republican parties right now.

We want the same things, namely energy independence in this case, the difference is approach. So how would you approach it?

[red states rule]

You and RSR, though, are part of those gumming up the works. You're both so intractable on your beliefs, that you cannot work together toward a common goal. Even in my above statement that you clearly agreed with, you took it on the offensive. It's an exact parallel to the Democrat and Republican parties right now.

We want the same things, namely energy independence in this case, the difference is approach. So how would you approach it?

Because I am principled. The left want to downgrade the standard of living in this nation. I do not

I am for coal, wind, solar, nuclear, and OIL. Put it all out there

Our economy right now runs on OIL. For some damn reason the lieft wants to stop the drilling and take this economy down even further

With the rise in gas prices everything we buy will be going up in price

Why? Becuase everything we buy is trucked into the stores. Diesel in now over $4/gal where i am. Do you have any idea what it costs to fill up those big rigs?

Who wil pay the additional costs? WE WILL

Where is are the horror stories the liberal media ran daily 3 years ago when gas hit $3/gal when Bush was in office now that gas is about $3.40/gal now?

I don;t see them

Where are the Dems holding press conferences at gas stations like they were three years ago? Did I miss them?

[Psychoblues]

You and RSR, though, are part of those gumming up the works. You're both so intractable on your beliefs, that you cannot work together toward a common goal. Even in my above statement that you clearly agreed with, you took it on the offensive. It's an exact parallel to the Democrat and Republican parties right now.

We want the same things, namely energy independence in this case, the difference is approach. So how would you approach it?

I think you are missing the general point here, DS'72. I have positive things to say and do about energy independence and the path to get there. I have the desire and the skills to contribute to real efforts in that fully necessary direction. rsr, on the other hand, remains as negative, hateful, fearful and angry today as he was the day I met him 8 or so years ago. I would ask you, DS'72, not to comment, at least to me, about anything concerning rsr. He occasionally posts something that piques my interest but as a person I have absolutely nothing for him and I have every reason in the world for feeling that way. He may claim the same towards me but he would have to be untruthful with you and himself to do that.

Let's talk more about energy independence and how to get there, DS'72. I find that a much more welcome and entertaining subject.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I think you are missing the general point here, DS'72. I have positive things to say and do about energy independence and the path to get there. I have the desire and the skills to contribute to real efforts in that fully necessary direction. rsr, on the other hand, remains as negative, hateful, fearful and angry today as he was the day I met him 8 or so years ago. I would ask you, DS'72, not to comment, at least to me, about anything concerning rsr. He occasionally posts something that piques my interest but as a person I have absolutely nothing for him and I have every reason in the world for feeling that way. He may claim the same towards me but he would have to be untruthful with you and himself to do that.

Let's talk more about energy independence and how to get there, DS'72. I find that a much more welcome and entertaining subject.

Psychoblues

Meanwhile for the working folks.........

http://strangepolitics.com/images/content/130206.gif

[Psychoblues]

Because I am principled. The left want to downgrade the standard of living in this nation. I do not

I am for coal, wind, solar, nuclear, and OIL. Put it all out there

Our economy right now runs on OIL. For some damn reason the lieft wants to stop the drilling and take this economy down even further

With the rise in gas prices everything we buy will be going up in price

Why? Becuase everything we buy is trucked into the stores. Diesel in now over $4/gal where i am. Do you have any idea what it costs to fill up those big rigs?

Who wil pay the additional costs? WE WILL

Where is are the horror stories the liberal media ran daily 3 years ago when gas hit $3/gal when Bush was in office now that gas is about $3.40/gal now?

I don;t see them

Where are the Dems holding press conferences at gas stations like they were three years ago? Did I miss them?

They're all out there trying to find you, rsr, so they can get your opinions on how to solve all the world's problems.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

They're all out there trying to find you, rsr, so they can get your opinions on how to solve all the world's problems.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

and what have the Dems offered over the years?

http://strangepolitics.com/images/content/130205.gif

[Psychoblues]

and what have the Dems offered over the years?



I dunno? Maybe cartoons? Like you?

[red states rule]

I dunno? Maybe cartoons? Like you?

Wow, you must be taking night clasees to sharpen your debate skills

If you do not know what the Dems have offered then that says it all
PB

http://strangepolitics.com/images/content/138415.bmp

[Psychoblues]

Wow, you must be taking night clasees to sharpen your debate skills

If you do not know what the Dems have offered then that says it all
PB




Sooooooooooooo, cartoons remain your solutions?

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Sooooooooooooo, cartoons remain your solutions?

Psychoblues

When did Obama have a solution?

http://worshippingchristian.org/images/blog/drill_vs_inflate.jpg

[Psychoblues]

When did Obama have a solution?

More cartoons? The righties at least have their hearts in the right place. No, no they don't. They need to quit carping along partisan lines and get with the program of truly achieving total domestic energy independence as this will be our ONLY sustainable option at some now unknown point in time.

Our present Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, the first actual physicist and a Nobel prize winning one to boot in a long time to lead the Department of Energy has a lot to say about energy independence, how old and new technologies must be conjoined at least for now and what our likely energy future will look like and how we intend as a nation to get there.

Snarky remarks and cartoons ain't saying shit to this ol' cowboy.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

More cartoons? The righties at least have their hearts in the right place. No, no they don't. They need to quit carping along partisan lines and get with the program of truly achieving total domestic energy independence as this will be our ONLY sustainable option at some now unknown point in time.

Our present Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, the first actual physicist and a Nobel prize winning one to boot in a long time to lead the Department of Energy has a lot to say about energy independence, how old and new technologies must be conjoined at least for now and what our likely energy future will look like and how we intend as a nation to get there.

Snarky remarks and cartoons ain't saying shit to this ol' cowboy.

Psychoblues

Is this the same Sec of Energy who said roads and roofs should be painted white to save energy and fight global warming?




Another Obama Loony, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Now Selling White Paint
Posted on December 30, 2010 by Glenn H. Ray

“Paint it Black”

“Best of the Web linked to this 2009 London Times article titled “Paint the world white to fight global warming.” The Times reported that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu wants to paint as many of the earth’s surfaces white as reasonably possible, as a means of combating global warming:

Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white. A global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more sunlight and heat could play a big part in containing global warming, he said yesterday.

Professor Chu said that this approach could have a vast impact. By lightening paved surfaces and roofs to the colour of cement, it would be possible to cut carbon emissions by as much as taking all the world’s cars off the roads for 11 years, he said.

Building regulations should insist that all flat roofs were painted white, and visible tilted roofs could be painted with “cool-coloured” paints that looked normal, but which absorbed much less heat than conventional dark surfaces. Roads could be lightened to a concrete colour so they would not dazzle drivers in bright sunlight. “I think with flat-type roofs you can’t even see, yes, I think you should regulate,” Professor Chu said.

What’s funny about this is that during the 1970s global cooling scare, environmental activists–in some cases, the same people who are now global warming alarmists–insisted that governments (ours, in particular) should paint the ice caps black in order to absorb more of the sun’s radiation and thereby warm the Earth. At that time, activists thought it outrageous that politicians were too timid to take such an obvious step to save the planet. In both cases, what mostly seems to be involved is the will to power: “I think you should regulate,” Chu says, which is really the whole point.”

http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/another-obama-loony-secretary-of-energy-steven-chu-selling-white-paint/




That will work out great when it snows PB. hite snow on a white road :laugh2:

I was clear in a prior post on what I think should be done as far as energy - much like most Republicans

This morning I saw where gas hit $3.50/gal and just said "Thanks Bammy"

[Psychoblues]

Is this the same Sec of Energy who said roads and roofs should be painted white to save energy and fight global warming?



That will work out great when it snows PB. hite snow on a white road :laugh2:

I was clear in a prior post on what I think should be done as far as energy - much like most Republicans

This morning I saw where gas hit $3.50/gal and just said "Thanks Bammy"

"Bammy did not set that price or even have much effect on it, red, and you have to simply admit that. Present day world conditions and free market exploitation by market manipulators have achieved this plateau and I have no idea as to where their next may be. There is NO shortage of oil being delivered and refined in this country and there will not be according to OPEC and others that we buy from. Somebody, probably some crazy weird wild-eyed rightwinger, is jerking some chains right now, it appears.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

"Bammy did not set that price or even have much effect on it, red, and you have to simply admit that. Present day world conditions and free market exploitation by market manipulators have achieved this plateau and I have no idea as to where their next may be. There is NO shortage of oil being delivered and refined in this country and there will not be according to OPEC and others that we buy from. Somebody, probably some crazy weird wild-eyed rightwinger, is jerking some chains right now, it appears.

Psychoblues

So now that a liberal Dem is President - he is given a pass on high gas prices eh?

You libs are so "flexible" in your thinking when fellow Dems are in charge PB

And your fellow lib in the media are also "flexible"

No nightly stories on high gas prices like there were a few years ago





Networks Link Bush to 'Skyrocketing' Gas Prices 15 Times More Than Obama
By Julia A. Seymour | March 01, 2011 | 11:05


As gas prices rose in 2008, network reporters mentioned President Bush in 15 times as many stories than they brought up President Obama in a similar period in 2011.

Bush drew gallons of coverage in 2008. Comparing a 20-day span of rising gas prices in 2008 to 24 days of rising prices in February 2011, the Business & Media Institute found the networks did more than 2 ½ times as many stories during the Bush years versus Obama.

Unrest in the Mideast has hit American consumers hard, driving up gas prices that had already been above $3-a-gallon since Dec. 23. The national average for gasoline hit $3.36 on Feb. 28, the highest ever for the month of February according to The Associated Press. But the amount of network news coverage of rising gas prices did not reflect it.

All three broadcast networks together averaged just one story about rising gas prices per day. In contrast, when gas prices rose similarly in 2008, the networks averaged more than one story, per network, per day.

It took 24 days, from Feb. 1, to Feb. 24 for the national average for unleaded gasoline to climb from $3.101 to 3.228. The last comparable period of "eye-popping" gas prices: the 20 days between Feb. 21, 2008, and March 11, 2008, when the national average climbed from $3.086 to $3.227.

Some 2008 reports including the March 6, 2008, "Early Show" exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump that was charging $5.19-a-gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower. Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like "inching" to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices "a bargain compared to Europe."

The Business & Media Institute examined all the broadcast network news reports mentioning gas prices during each of those time periods and found ABC, CBS and NBC aired more than 2 ½ times more stories (63 stories to 24) in 2008 than they did in 2011.

But it was more than just the amount of coverage that showed the media's willingness to spin gas prices one way under Bush, and another way under Obama. In 2008, network reporters mentioned "Bush," the "president" or "government" in gas price reports 15 times more often than in 2011 under President Obama (15 stories to 1). A number of stories portrayed Bush as out-of-the-loop when he was asked about the possibility of $4-a-gallon gas and hadn't yet heard that prediction.

In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush administration when gas prices were "through the roof," the only 2011 story to mention the president was NBC "Nightly News" on Feb. 24. Tom Costello's report on the impact of surging gas prices quoted President Obama who was "optimistic."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2011/03/01/networks-link-bush-skyrocketing-gas-prices-15-times-more-obama#ixzz1FjGrVNWH

[Psychoblues]

So now that a liberal Dem is President - he is given a pass on high gas prices eh?

You libs are so "flexible" in your thinking when fellow Dems are in charge PB

And your fellow lib in the media are also "flexible"

No nightly stories on high gas prices like there were a few years ago

You just incessantly carp on the partisan divide, don't you, red? I have been relatively active in the fighting high gass prices department since 1973 when they first hit us like an iceball in the face. To do less would be negligent and a dereliction of duty and clearly there are thousand so politicians both left and right that fall into that category.

I see stories on the nightly news every night concerning the oil and oil price problems, red. What I don't do is read "newsbusters" whose stated intent is to present a one-sided and negative view of main-stream media, and has a worse reputation than FoxNews for distorting the truth at best and outright lying most of the time and just generally blowing more than shit out of their asses over there.

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

You just incessantly carp on the partisan divide, don't you, red? I have been relatively active in the fighting high gass prices department since 1973 when they first hit us like an iceball in the face. To do less would be negligent and a dereliction of duty and clearly there are thousand so politicians both left and right that fall into that category.

I see stories on the nightly news every night concerning the oil and oil price problems, red. What I don't do is read "newsbusters" whose stated intent is to present a one-sided and negative view of main-stream media, and has a worse reputation than FoxNews for distorting the truth at best and outright lying most of the time and just generally blowing more than shit out of their asses over there.

Psychochoblues

You "see" those stories but you do not "see" anything posted here on the board that goes against your liberal beliefs PB

Funny how the article gives specific dates and data yet you dismiss it

I huess next you will post how the liberal media never held Pres Bush responsible for high gas prices

Yet as gas prices continue ti climb and hurt working clas people - libs are silent because one of their own is in charge now

[Psychoblues]

You "see" those stories but you do not "see" anything posted here on the board that goes against your liberal beliefs PB

Funny how the article gives specific dates and data yet you dismiss it

I huess next you will post how the liberal media never held Pres Bush responsible for high gas prices

Yet as gas prices continue ti climb and hurt working clas people - libs are silent because one of their own is in charge now

You're just trying to pick a fight that is not there, red. You are as despicable and obstinate as I remember.

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

You're just trying to pick a fight that is not there, red. You are as despicable and obstinate as I remember.

Psychochoblues


Are yiu saying PB Dems and the liberal media did NOT balme Bush when gas first hit $3/gal?

Or are you doing your Virgil thing today but ducking and dodging and excuse making to protect Obama?

[Psychoblues]

Are yiu saying PB Dems and the liberal media did NOT balme Bush when gas first hit $3/gal?

Or are yu doing your Virgil thing today but ducking and dodging and excuse making to protect Obama?

I am certain there was some bi-partisan cajoling going on about that time and some of it got very faux-serious by some very ignorant partisans that didn't matter anyway and couldn't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider facts, figures and solutions. I'm looking at you, red. I have not ducked, or dodged, or made any excuses to protect anybody but especially President Barack Hussein Obama or myself.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

I am certain there was some bi-partisan cajoling going on about that time and some of it got very faux-serious by some very ignorant partisans that didn't matter anyway and couldn't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider facts, figures and solutions. I'm looking at you, red. I have not ducked, or dodged, or made any excuses to protect anybody but especially President Barack Hussein Obama or myself.

Psychoblues

Yea, PB still playing the Fox NEws card. Here is one example from USA Today. The poor sick people and high gas prices under Pres Bush

Funny how I have not seen ay stories about the sick people and high gas prices under Obama




Sick Americans who travel far or frequently to get medical treatment are skipping or delaying appointments, leaving support groups and applying for grants to defray high gasoline prices.
People who visit the doctor multiple times each week or month, such as cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and people needing dialysis, have been hardest hit.


BETTER LIFE BLOG: Taking the pulse of health news

At the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, some skin cancer patients are delaying appointments because they can't afford gasoline, patient service representative Nicole Vliet says.

"It could be just a follow-up appointment, or it could affect their treatment," she says. "I really started to notice it in April when prices started to go up."

The average price for a gallon of regular gas was $3.68 Wednesday. That's down from the peak in July, but it is still about 90 cents above the price a year ago.

In Sacramento, Paratransit Inc. has felt the effect. The non-profit service provides $4 rides to seniors and people with disabilities to doctor's offices and elsewhere. In July, the number of requested rides jumped 11% over the group's projections to 38,506, deputy executive director Mary Steinert says.

"People are going to depend on us more because their friends and family can't afford to transport them in their cars," she says.

The American Kidney Fund, which helps patients on dialysis, offers transportation grants up to twice a year for a maximum of $175 each, president LaVarne Burton says.

More people are applying, citing gas prices and other pressures, she says. In the first seven months of the year, the group gave 12,842 grants, totaling $2.2 million, 31% more than during the same period last year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-03-medicalgas_N.htm




and the usual from the liberal meida




The average price of gasoline has now reached an all time high in the United States at $3.03 per gallon. Higher even than in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. The recent cease fire and UN agreement between Israel, Lebanon, and the Hizbollah and the recent downgrading of the years predicted hurricanes and gulf coast storms have reduced the risk to the oil industry. There are no foreseen major disruptions or implications to the oil supply in the near future so experts are saying the price of crude oil on the world market should be seeing a large drop over the next few weeks. That is not to say that George Bush will not create something again to help his Big Oil friends and campaign contributors.

Over the last few months Americans have been shelling out upwards of $3 per gallon on average and equipped with a stalled and weakening economy this really hits the middle and lower class in the pocket books. To weather the storm, savings have been ravaged and Americans are saving less and carrying more debt than ever. 90 percent of Americans carry debt and the average credit card debt is now well over $10,000. This is in part due to George Bush and his republican view that the middle class needs to disappear.

George Bush has passed laws and paved the way for Big Oil to have its biggest paydays ever. Exxon Mobil and other oil and energy companies are reeling in record profits this year at the expense of the average American. George Bush and the rich do not feel the squeeze as the middle class does. They use their creative tax write offs, accountants and tax lawyers to whittle away their taxable income to around or below 1 percent on average for the rich and wealthy. The middle class, on the other hand, pays an average 0f 30 to 35 percent of their income in taxes. Is this fair, absolutely not, but since the rich are not paying their share of taxes it has to come from somewhere.

Regardless, right now there are no soon foreseen oil commerce problems and so the price of oil and therefore gas at the pumps should be dropping and the American consumer should be seeing a little relief. Just do not tell George Bush about this or he, Big Oil and his Saudi Friends will find a way to bring the price back up. I do not see why the government cannot take over the oil industry like they did with USPS, the United States Postal Service and mail delivery. USPS is one of the best run industries in the U.S. and it is still the cheapest method for mail delivery in the states or overseas. IF USPS ran the oil industry in the U.S. gas would be $1.50 or so per gallon. USPS does not charge what the world market price is for mail delivery and shipping it charges a fair price and does not make $12 billion in sick profits and $100 million dollar CEO compensation packages. George Bush could learn a lot from USPS and needs to stop screwing with the middle class and helping out his rich friends.

http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/gas-prices-to-come-down-next-week-unless-george-bush-and-big-oil-intervene-50215.html




but so far PB silence from these same people as gas prices soar under the Bamster

[red states rule]

Wherr are all the opeds Dems were writing years ago when gas prices went above $3/gal under BUsh PB?

Am I missing them?





Few issues focus the public’s attention on politics like the price of gasoline. It keeps going up, the public wants relief, and politicians are held accountable for not fixing the situation. Yet to solve the problem, you first need to know the cause of the illness.

Why do gasoline prices keep going up? Is it because Congress and President Bush have not fashioned energy policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Clearly that’s part of the answer. Our government can do more to reduce demand and increase supply through conservation, auto fuel efficiency standards, tax breaks and subsidies for development of alternative energy sources, and incentives to drill more in the U.S.

But that’s not the entire story.

The immediate cause of rising oil prices is the weak dollar. Oil-producing countries are requiring more dollars to purchase the same barrel of oil because the dollar is worth less today than it was a few years ago. Anyone who travels abroad knows about the weak dollar. In 2000, it took $1 to purchase one euro.

Today, it takes close to $1.60 to purchase a euro. A Canadian dollar is now worth the same as a U.S. dollar, whereas eight years ago it was worth considerably less than an American dollar.

And why do we have a weak dollar?

You can start with the economic policies followed by the Bush administration. During Bush’s 7½ years in office, we have maintained large trade deficits with the rest of the world and run up large domestic budget deficits to pay for our misadventure in Iraq and large tax cuts for the wealthy. Also, according to a monograph recently issued by the Center for American Progress, the Federal Reserve’s low-interest policy has caused a 14 percent decline in the value of the dollar since last September.

The center estimates that “nearly 40 percent of the increased price American consumers are paying for oil is attributable to the weak dollar,” even after factoring in the effects of increased global demand from countries such as China.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10940.html

[Psychoblues]

Wherr are all the opeds Dems were writing years ago when gas prices went above $3/gal under BUsh PB?

Am I missing them?

Yep. You're missing them and I think you're intentionally missing them.

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

Yep. You're missing them and I think you're intentionally missing them.

Psychochoblues

Give me the links PB

Of course others are waiting on another thread for the polls showing Obama's high approval numbers you said existed

and I am sure they wil be waiting for a long time - as will I for the above mentioned links

[Psychoblues]

Give me the links PB

Of course others are waiting on another thread for the polls showing Obama's high approval numbers you said existed

and I am sure they wil be waiting for a long time - as will I for the above mentioned links

There you go with your bullshit demands, red. My purpose is to pique your interest. You can educate yourself. I won't be chasing my tail like you refuse to do yourself. Nice try, though. Does this mean you're giving up and I WIN!!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

No I win :boobies:

[BoogyMan]

Batshit, pig boy.

Psychoblues

Where are the breathless Democrat led calls for the president to take action on the high price of gasoline? Where, PB?

Lets see you, for once, actually cough up some kind of response to a question without resorting to the bufoonery in the quote shown here.

[red states rule]

There you go with your bullshit demands, red. My purpose is to pique your interest. You can educate yourself. I won't be chasing my tail like you refuse to do yourself. Nice try, though. Does this mean you're giving up and I WIN!!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

Translation : I don't have to post any links. I said the Dems were writing opeds and that should be good enough for you

Being a liberal I never have to prove what I say - only you as a right wingesr have to produce evidence

And when evidence is presented I will ignore and dismiss it since being the morally and intellectually superior liberal anyone who disagrees with me must be a racist and uninformed so I wil not waste time with responding to them

[red states rule]

Where are the breathless Democrat led calls for the president to take action on the high price of gasoline? Where, PB?

Lets see you, for once, actually cough up some kind of response to a question without resorting to the bufoonery in the quote shown here.

I hope you enjoy the sounds of crickets chirping because that is all you will get in response to that question

[Psychoblues]

Where are the breathless Democrat led calls for the president to take action on the high price of gasoline? Where, PB?

Lets see you, for once, actually cough up some kind of response to a question without resorting to the bufoonery in the quote shown here.

Howza'bout you keep up with current news, boogereater.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoshoblues

[red states rule]

Howza'bout you keep up with current news, boogereater.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoshoblues

Well PB is back to the isults so that tells all of us he has ZERO LINKS to back up his posts

Is anyone really surprised by that?

Like Obama, PB shoots off his mouth and gets PO'd when anyone asks him to back up what he says

[Psychoblues]

Translation : I don't have to post any links. I said the Dems were writing opeds and that should be good enough for you

Being a liberal I never have to prove what I say - only you as a right wingesr have to produce evidence

And when evidence is presented I will ignore and dismiss it since being the morally and intellectually superior liberal anyone who disagrees with me must be a racist and uninformed so I wil not waste time with responding to them

My reputation around here disproves every word of that bullshit, red. You got something else?

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

My reputation around here disproves every word of that bullshit, red. You got something else?

Psychochoblues

Your reputation around here is the same as Virgil's - liberal hack first class

Where are the links to those opeds written by Dems PB?

Prove me wrong on this. Here is your chance hotshot.

Now man up or admit you lied

[BoogyMan]

Prove it.


I see no shift at all other than a closer relationship with T. Boone Pickens and natural gas. Republicans and Democrats alike have been espousing domestic energy independence since the early 70's but we are far worse in that respect now than we were then and that is not even planned in the long or short run to change. All this malarkey about domestic drilling solving our oil/gas problems is just that, malarkey.

It's the job of the politicos to comfort the trembling masses.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

No I win :boobies:

That's right!!!!!! The Tiggerman wins by a tank-full!!!!!!!!!!

Psychochoblues

[DragonStryk72]

Because I am principled. The left want to downgrade the standard of living in this nation.


rsr, on the other hand, remains as negative, hateful, fearful and angry today as he was the day I met him 8 or so years ago.
Psychoblues

It's nice that you both took time out of your posts to prove my point. For rsr, you state you are principled, inherently condemning everyone who doesn't share your point of view, even myself on several ocassions. PB, you go at him personally. This is why we aren't energy independent, out of debt, or anything else, so it does relate to the overall discussion.

It will take both sides working together, and likely not happy with many of the concessions both would have to make, if happy with any at all. That's not happening, though. We are divided by red and blue, and as is a part of our history, "United we stand, divided we fall". It isn't about the D or R after someone's name, or whether they're liberal or conservative. If you really want energy independence, then you have to accept that both of you are likely to dislike the steps involved.

The reason Brazil managed it was that they were united behind doing it. I imagine there had to be at least some of them who didn't necessarily agree with the methods over the years, but they came together on it, and look, they pulled it off. It's no different here, we attempted it, but we weren't united behind doing it, and so it fell apart, and now we're worse off than we were before. Every great thing we have accomplished as a country has been done by uniting as a people, putting aside differences for the greater goal, and until that happens on this subject, it just isn't going to succeed.

[Psychoblues]

It's nice that you both took time out of your posts to prove my point. For rsr, you state you are principled, inherently condemning everyone who doesn't share your point of view, even myself on several ocassions. PB, you go at him personally. This is why we aren't energy independent, out of debt, or anything else, so it does relate to the overall discussion.

It will take both sides working together, and likely not happy with many of the concessions both would have to make, if happy with any at all. That's not happening, though. We are divided by red and blue, and as is a part of our history, "United we stand, divided we fall". It isn't about the D or R after someone's name, or whether they're liberal or conservative. If you really want energy independence, then you have to accept that both of you are likely to dislike the steps involved.

The reason Brazil managed it was that they were united behind doing it. I imagine there had to be at least some of them who didn't necessarily agree with the methods over the years, but they came together on it, and look, they pulled it off. It's no different here, we attempted it, but we weren't united behind doing it, and so it fell apart, and now we're worse off than we were before. Every great thing we have accomplished as a country has been done by uniting as a people, putting aside differences for the greater goal, and until that happens on this subject, it just isn't going to succeed.

DS'72, you could not be further from the truth. I did not speak a word to rsr for about 5 years. Not one word, but he followed me around anyway ridiculing me, calling me a liar, calling me all kinds of names, neg repping me every chance he could, just being an asshole in general. I decided to clear my ignore list and possibly restart anew and with a fresh attitude. rsr ain't gonna have it, he sticks it to me and I return the favor. I've only been speaking to him for about a week or so and I've already absolutely proven him to be such a liar so many times that I've lost count.

That aside, rsr and I together are not going to solve anything anyway. I don't believe he could solve anything with anybody at any time. What ever his problems are they are deep seated and clinical in my honest opinion. I've seen people present to him proof time, time, and time again and he discounts it as if he never saw it. He harasses people to the point of total exasperation so they either leave the conversation or the board altogether and he boasts that he WON THE DEBATE!!!!! I've been involved with competitive debating teams for years and just looking at what rsr seems to call debating skills I know that he would be eliminated on the very first round of any legitimate and properly moderated debate.

I wouldn't get too excited about anything that rsr and I say to each other, '72. I'm generally laughing my ass off and he's getting his panties in a big wad.

It's a hoot!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychochoblues

[logroller]

It might not solve it entirely, that is true. However, it would lower our dependence on outside sources for oil & gas, so that we don't have to jump every time something starts to happen in the Middle East, and limiting the power of OPEC to jack up the price of oil.

Up here in VT, some businesses are starting to put up solar panels, not because of any govt reg or anything, but on their own, so that they can lower their monthly electric costs. Now, most can't get enough panel coverage to go 100% solar, but even 25% is better than 0%. I think this is more the path to energy independence that we need.

It might not??? It won't, not with current demand, which continues to grow BTW.It'll create jobs, but reduce our dependance on foreign oil it does not. Not any more than pissing in the ocean makes it appreciably more salty. So far as OPEC, we're better off manipulating the political rule in such countries to grant us more favorable trade-- which we have and continue to do with variable results.

SO far as "no govt reg or anything", do a little more inspection into the financial incentives from govt tax credits, direct or indirect through their utility provider. I think you'll find its not as laissez-faire as you surmise.

[DragonStryk72]

It might not??? It won't, not with current demand, which continues to grow BTW.It'll create jobs, but reduce our dependance on foreign oil it does not. Not any more than pissing in the ocean makes it appreciably more salty. So far as OPEC, we're better off manipulating the political rule in such countries to grant us more favorable trade-- which we have and continue to do with variable results.

SO far as "no govt reg or anything", do a little more inspection into the financial incentives from govt tax credits, direct or indirect through their utility provider. I think you'll find its not as laissez-faire as you surmise.

More favorable trade? Yeah, except they know we need them, so the favor is on them. As for increased drilling, yes it would make the percentage move, I'm sorry, but that's truth. It will make at least some degree of difference, even if just to scare OPEC into acting right. A lot of the price hikes they get away with are based around the fact they know we won't just produce the oil ourselves. As well, as we work down our needs, that percentage will grow.

As to No govt regs or anything, since I know the owners, I can pretty well state that one as a fact. The simplest reason is it reducing his elec bills by a noticeable amount, completely setting aside any tax credits or whatnot. Up here in VT, there is a serious will behind going green. And that is what it really takes to achieve that, is the people themselves getting fully behind it.

Now, as to our needs, this is where I talked about hybrid vehicles, as they will reduce demand quite a ways, oft times using less than a quarter of the gas that a regular vehicle would use. 60-75% less fuel being used would go a huge way toward that goal of independence.

However, it's also going to take people giving up some of their excess travel in cars to accomplish this. Americans in general want to be part of something bigger, and we've repeatedly shown that we're willing to sacrifice great amounts in times of need. It's really no different here.

No one thing is going to solve the energy problems here in this country. Only a collective effort across multiple lines is going to actually accomplish energy independence.

[logroller]

More favorable trade? Yeah, except they know we need them, so the favor is on them. As for increased drilling, yes it would make the percentage move, I'm sorry, but that's truth. It will make at least some degree of difference, even if just to scare OPEC into acting right. A lot of the price hikes they get away with are based around the fact they know we won't just produce the oil ourselves. As well, as we work down our needs, that percentage will grow.

As to No govt regs or anything, since I know the owners, I can pretty well state that one as a fact. The simplest reason is it reducing his elec bills by a noticeable amount, completely setting aside any tax credits or whatnot. Up here in VT, there is a serious will behind going green. And that is what it really takes to achieve that, is the people themselves getting fully behind it.

Now, as to our needs, this is where I talked about hybrid vehicles, as they will reduce demand quite a ways, oft times using less than a quarter of the gas that a regular vehicle would use. 60-75% less fuel being used would go a huge way toward that goal of independence.

However, it's also going to take people giving up some of their excess travel in cars to accomplish this. Americans in general want to be part of something bigger, and we've repeatedly shown that we're willing to sacrifice great amounts in times of need. It's really no different here.

No one thing is going to solve the energy problems here in this country. Only a collective effort across multiple lines is going to actually accomplish energy independence.

Preach on brother...:clap: