obama not interested in lower gas prices

[Nemesis 1]

Newt Gingrich is promising $2.50/gallon gasoline if he is elected president, so it must be true that the president sets gasoline prices... he's even encouraging campaign donors to enumerate their contributions in "Newt Gallons".

Tell the whole story JOE . What else did newt say after mich. What did Romney say . They both talked like Ron Paul converts

 

[Darwin333]

Shrug, when taken in context the very next sentence is:

"“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” "

and I pretty much agree with that. Not a hell of a lot they can do about gas prices anyway.

 

[Darwin333]

I suppose no one remembers that gas was at 4.50+ before the financial collapse, and that the only reason it fell was due to a drop in demand from people trying to save money. The fact that it's going up again is actually a good sign for the economy, as much as it's an annoyance.

Chu is essentially correct: we shouldn't expect the price of gas to fall, and in fact it will likely continue to rise over the coming decades unless we find ways to move off of petroleum. Any attempts to drill more or release reserves will provide only very short-term gains. Enough to get everybody elected to another term, but not enough to solve any real problems. Fortunately, the more motivation everyone will have to move to other solutions.

True, except for the small problem that demand has fallen and prices are still going up...... Other than that you are spot on though.

 

[blankslate]

In other words, the president has no control over it and would be a waste of his time to pretend.

Pretty much that...

He could release some strategic reserves but that wouldn't reduce the prices all that much...

Another thing to keep in mind is that in the past investors and speculators made up about 30% of the investments in the oil commodities market, while producers and refiners and other companies involved in the use of oil was 70%...

Now investors and speculators the source of 70% of the trading in oil commodities... it's rather obvious now unless you're really simple what that is doing to the prices of gas.

Furthermore here's this little tidbit of knowledge from a former Bush administration official.

Guy Caruso, who was the EIA’s chief for more than six years of the George W. Bush administration, called energy independence a “political slogan.”
“Say we wave a magic wand and say we import no oil from the Middle East ... does that mean we’re secure? More ‘independent’?” he asked. “The answer is no because we’re still vulnerable to any shocks to the system.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73210_Page2.html#ixzz1np4pcPuN

The fact is given the way the world politics is around the main oil producing nations in the world it was foolish of this country not to spend more on R&D other sources of energy in the past.

 

[halik]

Newt Gingrich is promising $2.50/gallon gasoline if he is elected president, so it must be true that the president sets gasoline prices... he's even encouraging campaign donors to enumerate their contributions in "Newt Gallons".

Newt Gingrich would tell you he'll blow you for your vote.

 

[umbrella39]

Gas prices are not even set by supply and demand anymore.

Speculative investment is more of a controlling interest than actual availability. Prices do not go up that much that quickly based on actual events that fall way short of catastrophic. The whole thing is a game, and the last time that it was played people pushed for teh development of Hybrids that you could actually be seen in w/o loss of face.

If it happens again, for long enough, we will see more development in this. Maybe even electrics that do not cost $40K for something that looks only slightly sportier than a Prius.

This 110% The unregulated speculation is what drives the price of gas today. FUD and greed. Speculators have to tip toe very lightly lest we push back harder this time and start driving even less and start pushing for cheaper electrics. Plus, it's always fun to watch the price at the pump go up 20 cents in a day when a barrel of oil goes up $2 but watch it stay there for days and days after the price of oil drops back down $2. If people honestly think it is supply vs demand anymore all the need look at is the facts, supply is up and demand is down again.

 

[monovillage]

Newt Gingrich would tell you he'll blow you for your vote.

He'd have to stand in line behind Obama.

 

[dmcowen674]

Gas prices are controlled by supply and demand.

Congrats on being the most wrong person on the Internets

 

[sandorski]

Account made in response to discussion in sticky?

Probably.

 

[TalonStrike]

Repubs complain about wars.
wars start improving?
Repubs complain about unemployment instead.
unemployment starts improving?
Repubs complain about gas prices instead.
Gas prices start improving?
Repubs find something else to bitch about.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You're being deliberately obtuse.
The US government is not in a position to dictate the international price of crude. The best we could do is subsidize the purchase of oil (hand-outs), but that doesn't really address the problem, now does it?
The current price is reflective of a trend that isn't going away: the demand for oil is outpacing the supply. We can hide that fact with artificial tactics but it doesn't change that underlying condition. No amount of burying your head in the sand or blithe wishful thinking will change that.
We need alternative energy sources. If the price of gasoline pushes for that now, that's better than bearing the full, unmitigated brunt of $20+/gal gas later.

WWYBYWB?

Repubs complain about wars.
wars start improving?
Repubs complain about unemployment instead.
unemployment starts improving?
Repubs complain about gas prices instead.
Gas prices start improving?
Repubs find something else to bitch about.

unemployment and gas prices aren't improving much.

 

[dank69]

WWYBYWB?



...

I sincerely doubt it's a RBM. Most likely an new alt account.

 

[thraashman]

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu stated the administration was not interested in lowering gas prices, as high prices will help push people towards alternate power sources.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/29/chu-to-congress-were-not-interested-in-lowering-gas-prices/

In other words, the nation gets to choke on high gas prices.

We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this

So, the word Stephen Chu used was concerned instead of interested? OMG TIME TO FREAK OUT! It's ridiculous that shit like this even gets attention from anyone.

 

[werepossum]

Of course Obama isn't really interested in lowering gas prices, except perhaps temporarily as a campaign gimmick. Both he and Chu have several times lauded high gas prices, which from the progressive standpoint do many desirable things. High oil & gas prices encourage (read: force) Americans to use less energy total and less petroleum in particular, important for "world fairness" (<cough> my signature quote), by encouraging Americans to create and purchase more fuel efficient automobiles and to drive less. This also causes less pollution, especially green house gases which progressives believe threaten the world and everyone should agree have nasty side affects such as ocean (and to a lesser degree aquatic) acidification and increased damage to stone and metal. High oil & gas prices encourage more research into alternative energy, and makes alternative energy more competitive - which is much harder to do by making alternative energy cheaper. High gas prices force more Americans to turn to public transportation - besides being a progressive end unto itself, this increases the efficiency of public transportation. A bus or train uses almost as much energy at 1% capacity as at 100% capacity, but at higher capacities public mass transit is much more efficient in energy per passenger. Then there are the desirable (to a progressive) secondary effects. High oil & gas prices are an excellent excuse to seize and redistribute wealth, and make more people dependable on government both for handouts and for public mass transit - thus manufacturing more Democrat voters. If you favor progressive Democrat policies, you should be celebrating high oil & gas prices.

Of course, there are undeniably bad effects too. Money spent on gas or heating oil isn't available to be spent on anything else. Much of the money spent on gas or other petroleum products flows out of the country to mostly not return. Anything containing petroleum as component or feedstock also gets more expensive. Anything using energy from petroleum derivatives for manufacturing and/or transportation (which is damned near everything) has to get more expensive. Almost anything directly competing with a petroleum product gets more expensive. All these things tend to crush the economy. On the brighter side for progressives, high oil & gas prices are another opportunity to use government to select winners and losers among industries and even individual corporations. For a man who termed his very brief time in the public sector as his time "behind enemy lines", with little understanding of or empathy for capitalism, these are probably persuasive.

Then there's the practical side. While a President can relatively easily increase what Americans pay for oil & gas, he can't easily decrease them; his available tools tend to be either ineffective (tapping the strategic reserve) or too long term (increasing leases and streamlining permitting) to help much with our short-sighted electorate. It's not in a politician's best interests to devote any more energy and attention to something he can't do than is demanded by the voters, so even if Obama decided the bad things about high oil & gas prices outweigh the good, politically it's not a good issue.

Look for Obama to spend a lot of time blaming Republicans for high oil & gas prices, propose some redistribution to lessen the pain of high oil & gas prices, and do little to nothing to actually lower prices. Even those of us who disagree with Obama's progressive policies ought to realize that in the end, the market sets prices, and anything the government does to lower them is likely to be ineffective if not downright destructive. Frankly I'm more concerned about energy independence, both for national security and for economic reasons, than about gas prices.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Of course Obama isn't really interested in lowering gas prices, except perhaps temporarily as a campaign gimmick. Both he and Chu have several times lauded high gas prices, which from the progressive standpoint do many desirable things. High oil & gas prices encourage (read: force) Americans to use less energy total and less petroleum in particular, important for "world fairness" (<cough> my signature quote), by encouraging Americans to create and purchase more fuel efficient automobiles and to drive less. This also causes less pollution, especially green house gases which progressives believe threaten the world and everyone should agree have nasty side affects such as ocean (and to a lesser degree aquatic) acidification and increased damage to stone and metal. High oil & gas prices encourage more research into alternative energy, and makes alternative energy more competitive - which is much harder to do by making alternative energy cheaper. High gas prices force more Americans to turn to public transportation - besides being a progressive end unto itself, this increases the efficiency of public transportation. A bus or train uses almost as much energy at 1% capacity as at 100% capacity, but at higher capacities public mass transit is much more efficient in energy per passenger. Then there are the desirable (to a progressive) secondary effects. High oil & gas prices are an excellent excuse to seize and redistribute wealth, and make more people dependable on government both for handouts and for public mass transit - thus manufacturing more Democrat voters. If you favor progressive Democrat policies, you should be celebrating high oil & gas prices.

Of course, there are undeniably bad effects too. Money spent on gas or heating oil isn't available to be spent on anything else. Much of the money spent on gas or other petroleum products flows out of the country to mostly not return. Anything containing petroleum as component or feedstock also gets more expensive. Anything using energy from petroleum derivatives for manufacturing and/or transportation (which is damned near everything) has to get more expensive. Almost anything directly competing with a petroleum product gets more expensive. All these things tend to crush the economy. On the brighter side for progressives, high oil & gas prices are another opportunity to use government to select winners and losers among industries and even individual corporations. For a man who termed his very brief time in the public sector as his time "behind enemy lines", with little understanding of or empathy for capitalism, these are probably persuasive.

Then there's the practical side. While a President can relatively easily increase what Americans pay for oil & gas, he can't easily decrease them; his available tools tend to be either ineffective (tapping the strategic reserve) or too long term (increasing leases and streamlining permitting) to help much with our short-sighted electorate. It's not in a politician's best interests to devote any more energy and attention to something he can't do than is demanded by the voters, so even if Obama decided the bad things about high oil & gas prices outweigh the good, politically it's not a good issue.

Look for Obama to spend a lot of time blaming Republicans for high oil & gas prices, propose some redistribution to lessen the pain of high oil & gas prices, and do little to nothing to actually lower prices. Even those of us who disagree with Obama's progressive policies ought to realize that in the end, the market sets prices, and anything the government does to lower them is likely to be ineffective if not downright destructive. Frankly I'm more concerned about energy independence, both for national security and for economic reasons, than about gas prices.

Jesus Christ, could you please construct a coherent belief structure instead of pulling random disconnected conservatard memes out of your ass?
You acknowledge that this is market forces at work, so why the hell are you breaking out this boogy-strawman of "democrat conspiracy towards 'world fairness'"? Is China getting crude for $15/bbl? Is Africa? No! So how does this serve them to the exclusion of us? How are they better off with $120/bbl oil than we are?
High prices do not serve to funnel resources to the poor. Seriously, process it: If the price of a cup of coffee went from $0.50 to $200, is your average McDonalds burger-flipper going to have more coffee available to him because Bill Gates and Mitt Romney are going to have to cut back? Of course not. That makes absofuckinglutely no sense. The burger flipper now can't afford any coffee while Bill Gates and Mitt Romney are cruising along as though nothing happened.

For another contradiction, you acknowledge that the President can't do anything to reduce prices, but you start by implying he does have a method but he's just "not interested." Get your story straight.

And where does this retardation of "public transportation is a progressive end unto itself" come from? Do you even know what "end unto itself" means?
The only end unto itself of public transportation is "transportation." That's why it's called... transportation. Anything else that happens to be associated with it would be a separate end.


^^^ It's like I'm teaching freshmen.

 

[zinfamous]

unemployment and gas prices aren't improving much.

unemployment has improved shockingly well.

employment (weird how different these two are measured), is much worse.

 

[zinfamous]

Jesus Christ, could you please construct a coherent belief structure instead of pulling random disconnected conservatard memes out of your ass?
You acknowledge that this is market forces at work, so why the hell are you breaking out this boogy-strawman of "democrat conspiracy towards 'world fairness'"? Is China getting crude for $15/bbl? Is Africa? No! So how does this serve them to the exclusion of us? How are they better off with $120/bbl oil than we are?
High prices do not serve to funnel resources to the poor. Seriously, process it: If the price of a cup of coffee went from $0.50 to $200, is your average McDonalds burger-flipper going to have more coffee available to him because Bill Gates and Mitt Romney are going to have to cut back? Of course not. That makes absofuckinglutely no sense. The burger flipper now can't afford any coffee while Bill Gates and Mitt Romney are cruising along as though nothing happened.

For another contradiction, you acknowledge that the President can't do anything to reduce prices, but you start by implying he does have a method but he's just "not interested." Get your story straight.

And where does this retardation of "public transportation is a progressive end unto itself" come from? Do you even know what "end unto itself" means?
The only end unto itself of public transportation is "transportation." That's why it's called... transportation. Anything else that happens to be associated with it would be a separate end.


^^^ It's like I'm teaching freshmen.

you watch cartoons for breakfast entertainment.

I'm not sure where the real retards stand in this forum.

 

[DominionSeraph]

you watch cartoons for breakfast entertainment.

Uhhh... no. My cartoons aren't that light. My music is, though.

 

[werepossum]

Jesus Christ, could you please construct a coherent belief structure instead of pulling random disconnected conservatard memes out of your ass?
You acknowledge that this is market forces at work, so why the hell are you breaking out this boogy-strawman of "democrat conspiracy towards 'world fairness'"? Is China getting crude for $15/bbl? Is Africa? No! So how does this serve them to the exclusion of us? How are they better off with $120/bbl oil than we are?
High prices do not serve to funnel resources to the poor. Seriously, process it: If the price of a cup of coffee went from $0.50 to $200, is your average McDonalds burger-flipper going to have more coffee available to him because Bill Gates and Mitt Romney are going to have to cut back? Of course not. That makes absofuckinglutely no sense. The burger flipper now can't afford any coffee while Bill Gates and Mitt Romney are cruising along as though nothing happened.

For another contradiction, you acknowledge that the President can't do anything to reduce prices, but you start by implying he does have a method but he's just "not interested." Get your story straight.

And where does this retardation of "public transportation is a progressive end unto itself" come from? Do you even know what "end unto itself" means?
The only end unto itself of public transportation is "transportation." That's why it's called... transportation. Anything else that happens to be associated with it would be a separate end.


^^^ It's like I'm teaching freshmen.

Wow, someone's off his meds. Some thoughts:
Reality is not a binary system; it is not EITHER "Obama is awesome and wants you to have his flying space babies and cheap energy" OR "Obama is evil and wants you to have expensive energy". Most people here understand this. Most people here also consider anime to be trite and, well, silly. I'll leave it to each reader to determine the degree of linkage here.

My "boogy-strawman of democrat conspiracy towards 'world fairness'" (whatever the hell THAT means) comes straight from Obama. I even have the quote in my signature. He does not think it's fair that Americans use a higher percentage of energy than our percentage of the population. This is not a unique opinion; many progressives have expressed it. As to why high gas and oil prices affect Americans disproportionately, try thinking. Most large consumers (per capita) make gasoline and other petroleum-based energy artificially expensive by adding on large taxes. This drives people of equal means to use less petroleum-based energy. To use simple terms, most nations who use a relatively high amount of petroleum-based energy per capita do so with smaller, more efficient cars and trucks, more rail transportation, more mass transit, smaller (and more efficient) homes built more closely together. Americans on the other hand are used to cheap energy; it's one of the major factors behind our post-war economic success. We drive much larger, much less efficient automobiles, and we drive them farther. We have larger, less well insulated homes conditioned with less efficient equipment. All this means that most of the world is much more conservation-minded than is America. To the extent that high oil and gas prices drive Americans to be more conservation-minded and therefore use less energy, especially petroleum-based energy, this is in line with Obama's expressed desires that Americans not use energy in excess of our percentage of the world's population AND that we produce less greenhouse gases. Again, this is common knowledge (though perhaps not adequately conveyed to the dumbmasses with cartoon ponies.)

Your "point" about higher prices not funneling resources to the poor is missing my point. To the extent that oil prices are market-based, higher prices lead to less consumption which leads to lower prices. Americans with our gas guzzlers, low gas taxes, and poorly developed mass transit are particularly vulnerable to high prices. Oil doesn't have to be funneled to the poor to reduce Americans' share of world consumption, it merely has to be expensive enough to cause Americans to change our habits. If it changes Americans' habits and we use less oil, Obama considers that a good thing for several reasons. He obviously won't be happy with everything resulting from higher oil and gas prices. Again, the world is not binary; very few things are either all good or all bad. Most people will agree with Obama on one or more of the things he considers good about high oil and gas prices, and a few will agree with him on everything. Once again, most people understand this without having it explicitly explained.

A politician's ability to affect something is in no way directly correlated with his desire to affect something. Obama has very limited ability to control the Taliban's desire to attack coalition forces, yet obviously he is certainly desirous of doing so. Conversely, Obama has a very great ability to control the attacks his staff makes on Republicans, but no interest in doing so (except to keep them from making him look too rabid.) Given those widely varying examples and Obama's own statements it should be clear that he has little interest in providing low gas and oil prices; in fact, he has stated his desire for high oil and gas prices to cut consumption, for reasons he has given (none of which include his desire to wear Spandex and live in a secret lair) and considers compelling. I added my view that as President he has few good tools to reduce oil and gas prices within a politically useful time frame because it's important to realize that oil and gas prices are high not because Obama wants them to be high, even though he does, or because he just doesn't care about it. Far too often we as Americans tend to think that if something is expensive it's because the President wants it so. I won't say that most Americans understand this, but I think most ATP&N forumites understand this. Nonetheless I added it so that the weaker minds (or to be generous, those perfectly functional minds mostly consumed with things like cartoon ponies) understand that I'm not saying oil and gas prices are high because Obama isn't interested (for whatever reason) in lowering them. I suppose this is just further evidence that it's useless trying to make anything idiot-proof, but I did try . . .

As to mass transit being an end unto itself for progressives, perhaps you've missed the decades-long struggle to force mass transit on Americans. Or perhaps you're merely incapable of understanding a sentence. Let's review: "High gas prices force more Americans to turn to public transportation - besides being a progressive end unto itself, this increases the efficiency of public transportation." Forcing Americans to turn to public transportation is a progressive end unto itself, as witnessed by said decades-long struggle. This means that for progressives, forcing Americans to take public transportation is something worth doing on its own merits, a worthy goal in and of itself (for divers reasons, some of which I accept and some I reject.) The alternative to this view would be to assume that progressives think forcing Americans to take public transportation is a bad thing, but want to do this for some ulterior motive. (Or I suppose you could deny that progressives have been pushing public transportation, since you obviously have no problem with being thought an idiot.)

Honestly, for someone so consumed with bragging about your intelligence, you spend an incredibly small amount of effort displaying any.

you watch cartoons for breakfast entertainment.

I'm not sure where the real retards stand in this forum.

LOL My post was obviously lacking in cartoon ponies and unicorns. I did not receive the Brony seal of approval.

 

[umbrella39]

I sincerely doubt it's a RBM. Most likely an new alt account.

This. You can always count on a few new ALTs and even some old ALTs get all resurrected and stuff. It's an early Easter surprise.

 

[rudder]

He's not interested because there's not a god damn thing he can do about it.

Sure he can. Long term... fiscal policies that strengthen the dollar. Short term, do like Bush and make announcements about starting more drilling. Oil prices dropped after Bush announced an end to the offshore drilling moratorium.

Obama and his administration may think higher gas prices will make Americans turn to more fuel efficient cars and such... I don't see the average American plunking down $30,000 on an electric car. Most would be lucky to pick up a gas guzzler for $6000.

 

[pcgeek11]

Gas prices are controlled by supply and demand.

I got two words for you: Bull Shit!

 

[HomerJS]

More people are catching on. This reply applies here also...

Rise in gas prices caused by speculators

 

[Nemesis 1]

True, except for the small problem that demand has fallen and prices are still going up...... Other than that you are spot on though.

So true . Natural gas same thing . Mild winter demand down pricies up . AMERICA is working backwards. Good has become bad and Bad has become good .

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So true . Natural gas same thing . Mild winter demand down pricies up . AMERICA is working backwards. Good has become bad and Bad has become good .

Natural gas prices are the lowest they've been in the past two years.