Ok so I just watched the video and does anyone believe that it would take 45 years of pumping oil through the key stone pipe line to save as much oil as the Obama administrations current oil policies? Im not an expert on drilling nor do I know exactly why oil has gone up so high but I do know this, listening to the political heads I am convinced they think they are all smarter than we are. I mean really, what she just said doesn't make any sense at all. It's like Nancy Pelosi saying we need to sign it before we know whats in it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are Obama's current oil policies exactly? If I am not mistaken, there has been more domestic oil production under Obama then any of the years of Bush's presidency.
Not true. Obama's policy is to raise the price of gasoline so that "green" alternatives are viable. That has been his policy from the get go. That was the same as Jimmy Carter's. I don't know why people are surprised. That IS the stated goal. you reap what you sow.
Look at the post above it says everything What it does not say is that oil production is up on private land not public. He has not let the well's on puplic land start back up. He also has not let the off shore well's get started going again. Got to love him though. He could sell anything.
Take the simple FACT that Obamas policy what ever it might be Pro or Con against domestic oil. Now we has another forgin company doing the job "Doing the pipeline" that a US company could be doing.
Gas was $1.80 when Obama took office.
When he pushed through cap and tax he told us that gas shuold cost us $5 a gallon. is policy is to raise oil prices.
True enough... except that fact means NOTHING. Just a few months before, it was higher than it is now.
The economy was falling apart then. The day that Obama was sworn in, the Dow plunged to 7,949. It’s now above 13,000 again. The month that Obama was sworn in, the economy shed around 600,000 jobs – the third consecutive month with a loss that size.
This chart shows it all. Hate Obama if you want to, just use real facts to do it... not made up zingers that the GOP politicians use to incite anger so they can get the job for themselves.
"The day that Obama was sworn in, the Dow plunged to 7,949." Oh the irony, I always heard the market was based on future indicators. IMHO, a pipeline leak should have a faster chance of being contained than a tanker spill or a deep sea rig explosion, and the US may be better off buying goods from people who still like us. Plus, it may even supply jobs to people who actually want to work and pay taxes. Unfortunately, until a more cost effective energy supply can be developed, fossil fuels are still the most cost efficient source available.
" This chart shows it all. Hate Obama if you want to, just use real facts to do it" If you like high commodity prices and inflation, Obama is your man.
They are still seeing the effects of a pipeline leak from 2010. Tar sands oil sinks to the bottom of bodies of waters unlike crude oil, which floats. This makes clean-up more difficult. Plus, there was nothing stopping Keystone from solely using Canadian labor and materials.
Speculators are pricing in an Obama win which means possible HYPER inflation so the commodities and bond markets should do well. Also, the rally has largely been on light volume. It'll be interesting to see if we have a huge sell off in the next week or two when the overinflated employment numbers and consumer data adjust.
I am somewhat ignorant on this subject (and many others) so bear with me but... I was under the impression that Bush didn't control oil prices (regardless of what democrats may have said) and neither does Obama (nor any other president). Fox News confirms (and Newt Gingrich should watch at 4:49 especially):
I was under the impression gas prices tanked along with the entire global economy in 2h 2008.
I was also under the impression oil prices rise based on market conditions, including s&d (and there is an insane amount of d coming from india and china), and stability of relations with Iran - the latter not being helped by the three leading presidential nominees all spouting off about BOMB IRAN WAR WAR WAR (I much prefer Ron Paul and Obama's takes) nor by Israel's posturing. Of course, it being an election year, these nominees' have every incentive to do what they can to play up fears about mideast instability. Why would Obama, as the inbcumbent, want prices higher in an election year?
Traders are trading prices on oil that hasn't even been pulled out of the ground yet??? Can someone explain this one to me?
Oil is a globally traded commodity - so how does slightly increased production at home translate to lower prices for americans when the oil companies have a global market to peddle their wares on? Not seeing how allowing oil companies to drill more helps anyone but the oil companies - they aren't going to sell it to the US cheaper out of some kind of patriotic loyalty...are they? And why do we give them billions a year in subsidies?
Even if we do increase oil drilling at home, are we not already at refining capacity? Isn't that a bottleneck? What will the oil companies do other than sell the oil globally, incluidng taking Canadian oil from keystone and selling it globally?
A shortage of refiners is a huge part of the problem. Unfortunately, partly-due to regulations, get-even-with-the-oil-companies politicians, opening and operating a refinery has gotten EXPENSIVE. True, oil companies are subsidized, but for the jobs they provide, in combination with the huge expense and risk of drilling and refining, they do more than their fair share to stimulate the economy. Consequently to the consumer, if the oil companies are taxed more, the cost will more than likely just trickle down. One advantage localized drilling and the Keystone pipeline may provide is lower priced crude oil to the US since commodities are traded using the dollar. That may reduce the price of gasoline. Right now, the dollar is so cheap the commodities market will continue to rise unless another huge global economic slump hits. Another thing that may help is if the companies that only take possession of the oil were allowed to trade the oil, the volatility may drop off. Oil companies are not the demonic, non-tax paying corporations that the media and this administration portray them to be. Ironically, many politicians have investments in “Green” companies and would like to see those investments pay off, so they will do everything within their power to raise the price of oil. Obviously, oil companies have a game plan of their own. However, as long as the current administration continues to support a weak dollar, I don’t see prices going down.
^I don't see why Obama is the only one "taking the blame" on the pipeline not being built. Isn't Nebraka's governor a republican? Wasn't he one of the key opponents concerning the routing of the pipeline? Ron is right about the reduction in the price at the pump. Analysis has shown that the savings after the pipeline is completed (which is a few years down the road), would be about 3 to 4 cents a gallon for certain areas. There is a surplus in the supply of oil in the US currently. If supply is the issue, why is the price continuing to rise?
The weak dollar and speculation are the two of the many reasons gas and oil are so high. Obama and Geithner believe in cheap dollar economics. Obama has changed his tune and surprisingly supports some of the pipeline construction. I think he is finally understandint that the high commodity prices are hurting him politically.
The market is up at taxpayer expense. All smoke and mirrors. Obama want's green energy to lead the way for economic recovery. He should be a lawyer or selling used cars.
Its hard to believe that people are so biased as to classifying themselves as democrats that they will side with any president who fills that position. I am even more astonished that Americans who can afford luxury boats, such as wakeboard boats, aren't repulsed by someone passing laws giving away their money, and taking their dollars and turning them into change (by printing money). I have always known that many Americans were ignorant, but I certainly didn't think that the more educated people were just as ignorant. The best thing for this country is for more people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio to hold Obama accountable to prove his credentials in order to become the President in the first place. I have never seen someone who was innocent avoid the public request, especially if he was an elected official. What is going to be bad is when he is proven to not be a "Natural Born American Citizen" and then everything that was signed by Obama is now in question. I know I am going to get stoned for this, but some of these statements are facts (some are my opinion), but the facts cannot be denied.
^What exactly is fact? Only kooks still believe that Obama will be proven not to be a "Natural Born American Citizen". I think it speaks volumes of a person's intelligence to continue to question the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship. He produced a birth certificate, case closed. I mean if you are going to question whether it is valid or not, why not question the validity of all of the president's birth certificates? If his name was Bush or Clinton or Smith or Brown and he was white, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Its hard to believe that people are so biased as to classifying themselves as republicans that they will side with any president who fills that position.
It's hard to believe that people think they are better off today than they were in 2008.Gas is considerably more expensive. The dollar ain't worth chit. WE are deeper in debt and much much more dependent on other countries than ever before. I guess if your getting a welfare check,food stamps and government housing and free cell phone. Things are looking rosy.
It's hard to believe that people think they are better off today than they were in 2008.Gas is considerably more expensive. The dollar ain't worth chit. WE are deeper in debt and much much more dependent on other countries than ever before. I guess if your getting a welfare check,food stamps and government housing and free cell phone. Things are looking rosy.
Where are you located? Out here in Nevada we are stuck with a huge post-housing-bubble hangover that has nothing to do with the president. It has to do with groupthink and collective greed. Everyone was in on it, and we are all paying the price. I speak with people regularly who are $150k+ upside down on their home loans. Really anyone who purchased here since 2000 on a thirty year fixed is upside down. Till that's corrected, many parts of the country will be in dire economic straights.
One thing that is a FACT, is that if I would have looked at someone's profile before I spoke, I would have realized that you are student and have no idea of the real world because you haven't made it there yet. I hope you are getting a degree in a field which is actually hiring, because the president you are backing has also about the worse record of unemployment rate. It's actually hard to find something that Obama has done that was good for this country.
Shawndoggy, you honestly think that the housing market "has nothing to do with the president?" I was a mortgage broker for 7 years, from 1999-2006, and saw the programs developed to allow bad credit and low income borrowers to get 100% financing. I know that Bush was in part responsible for this, but as long as they had jobs, most were able to barely make their payments. When the job markets crashed, then people couldn't make their payments which drove people into foreclosure. These foreclosure's sold for much much less than your house was worth and people would rather buy them at the lower cost. Since your house's appraised value is based off of "comparable" houses within 3 miles of your home, the value of your house fell down to the foreclosed houses values. If you think Obama is not at least somewhat responsible then you need to do some research before you vote.
One thing that is a FACT, is that if I would have looked at someone's profile before I spoke, I would have realized that you are student and have no idea of the real world because you haven't made it there yet. I hope you are getting a degree in a field which is actually hiring, because the president you are backing has also about the worse record of unemployment rate. It's actually hard to find something that Obama has done that was good for this country.
Shawndoggy, you honestly think that the housing market "has nothing to do with the president?" I was a mortgage broker for 7 years, from 1999-2006, and saw the programs developed to allow bad credit and low income borrowers to get 100% financing. I know that Bush was in part responsible for this, but as long as they had jobs, most were able to barely make their payments. When the job markets crashed, then people couldn't make their payments which drove people into foreclosure. These foreclosure's sold for much much less than your house was worth and people would rather buy them at the lower cost. Since your house's appraised value is based off of "comparable" houses within 3 miles of your home, the value of your house fell down to the foreclosed houses values. If you think Obama is not at least somewhat responsible then you need to do some research before you vote.
Maybe Nevada is unique, but the job market here fell off the cliff by about the middle of 2007, when development financing dried up, and then the construction industry died, taking the rest of the economy down with it. Was that Bush's fault? No. Is it Obama's fault? No.
We are in a downward spiral here on housing. The people who were foreclosed upon because they lost their jobs have long since lost their homes. Now it's a much greater percentage of strategic default by folks who see that their home won't be breakeven for a decade or more. People who can afford to pay, but don't want to be anchored to a terrible investment are walking now. Anyone here who thinks that the house that they paid $500k for in 2005 and is now worth $250k will ever be worth $500k again probably rides a purple unicorn to work on the rainbow lollipop highway.
One thing that is a FACT, is that if I would have looked at someone's profile before I spoke, I would have realized that you are student and have no idea of the real world because you haven't made it there yet.
After reading your posts it's apparent that being in the "real" world hasn't done much to enlighten you.
The thread is so full of fail it's ridiculous. We need to start a war with Iran because it might do some good? Where is that facepalm icon when you need it. The idea that Republicans are going to bail out bad policy is absurd. Republicans are the biggest traitors in this country right now. They want power and sense that the way to achieve it is for the country to decline in hopes that people will vote them back in. Too bad the last Republican president was at best an idiot and at worst a traitor that started a war in Iraq to make his cronies rich and appease the Saudi's who were threatened by Saddam's presence.
^One thing that is a FACT, is that my profile hasn't been updated since 2009. At that time, I was a student and have since graduated and have a job. Second thing thing that is fact, is I didn't go to college after high school, I joined the Navy. After my four years and an honorable discharge, I worked for eight years before I decided to go to college. I was able to finish my degrees without having to take any loans or incurring any substantial debt. So please explain to me how I have "no idea of the real world". Maybe next time before you try to draw conclusions about a person by reading a couple of things about them on a forum profile, you will take into consideration that maybe they followed a different path or maybe a person may have decided to go to graduate school, etc.
And if the president's citizenship is such a huge point and there are so many "Facts", how come not one of the GOP candidates has mentioned it during any of the campaigns? Surely if one of them were privied to the information you have, they could win the election without breaking a sweat.
Robert, how much was gas in the summer of 2008, when Bush was still president?
^One thing that is a FACT, is that my profile hasn't been updated since 2009. At that time, I was a student and have since graduated and have a job. Second thing thing that is fact, is I didn't go to college after high school, I joined the Navy. After my four years and an honorable discharge, I worked for eight years before I decided to go to college. I was able to finish my degrees without having to take any loans or incurring any substantial debt. So please explain to me how I have "no idea of the real world". Maybe next time before you try to draw conclusions about a person by reading a couple of things about them on a forum profile, you will take into consideration that maybe they followed a different path or maybe a person may have decided to go to graduate school, etc.
And if the president's citizenship is such a huge point and there are so many "Facts", how come not one of the GOP candidates has mentioned it during any of the campaigns? Surely if one of them were privied to the information you have, they could win the election without breaking a sweat.
Robert, how much was gas in the summer of 2008, when Bush was still president?
Jeremy is this the summer of 2012? I know your smarter than the average bear.Gas will be 5.00 a gallon by the summer.I've been in business for myself for 25 years.Now that's experience.Think about all the companies that have failed in the last 3 years.Think about all the people who have lost their jobs and houses in the last 3 years.Who controlled congress and the house for the last 5 years.I'm not saying Bush was worth a chit ,but he was a lot better than what we call a president now.Even all the people who didn't have a job before he became president and promised change wouldn't vote for him again.I didn't vote for him the first time and now that i've had a chance to see his leadership first hand i definitely wouldn't vote for him this time.I'll take a chance on someone new.
Gas won't be 5.00 a gallon (save some of the places that have higher than normal gas prices). And how can a president lower gas prices anyway? Do they set the price?
I am just curious, do you honestly think things would be much different if McCain would have won? How exactly will your life be different if a Republican wins this time around? I am astounded by the people that act as though the president of the US is some kind of elite ruler that has unchallenged executive power. Our government doesn't work that way. As far as the debt is concerned, three of the four GOP candidates are advocating war against Iran. What do you think a war of that magnitude is going to do to our national debt? If you are truly concerned about the debt and you are dead set on voting for a true fiscal conservative, Ron Paul would be your only option. I highly dout that you are in the corner of RP. If you vote for Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich, you are voting for someone that will have little to no effect on our national debt (except by adding to it). GOP, the party that advocates "less government", never lives up to that expectation. Hell, now they want to tell us how to behave in our bedroom.
Gas won't be 5.00 a gallon (save some of the places that have higher than normal gas prices). And how can a president lower gas prices anyway? Do they set the price?
I am just curious, do you honestly think things would be much different if McCain would have won? How exactly will your life be different if a Republican wins this time around? I am astounded by the people that act as though the president of the US is some kind of elite ruler that has unchallenged executive power. Our government doesn't work that way. As far as the debt is concerned, three of the four GOP candidates are advocating war against Iran. What do you think a war of that magnitude is going to do to our national debt? If you are truly concerned about the debt and you are dead set on voting for a true fiscal conservative, Ron Paul would be your only option. I highly dout that you are in the corner of RP. If you vote for Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich, you are voting for someone that will have little to no effect on our national debt (except by adding to it). GOP, the party that advocates "less government", never lives up to that expectation. Hell, now they want to tell us how to behave in our bedroom.
They do set the price by the value of the dollar which is at a all time low.Just like the romans if you brainwash the people into believing they need more government eventually they will be slaves for the government.But most people who believe change is coming and Obamanomics work won't ever see what hit them.About the debt if you house was full of sewer would you raise the ceiling?
They do set the price by the value of the dollar which is at a all time low.Just like the romans if you brainwash the people into believing they need more government eventually they will be slaves for the government.But most people who believe change is coming and Obamanomics work won't ever see what hit them.About the debt if you house was full of sewer would you raise the ceiling?
You do realize that a strong dollar makes our exports less competitive (more expensive on the world market) and makes us more dependent on imports (because the rest of the world is "on sale"), right?
For instance, this is the complaint that the rest of the world has with China, that China is purposefully keeping the value of its currency LOW so that its exports are artificially more competitive on the world market.
"Just like the romans if you brainwash the people into believing they need more government eventually they will be slaves for the government."
OK, so having a government that thinks they should control my (or anyone else's) sex-life is less controlling?
"About the debt if you house was full of sewer would you raise the ceiling?"
Would you add another line to pump additional sewer into your home? (Fathom what a war with Iran would cost; something 3 of the 4 GOP candidates are beating their chest about).
Have to side with the republicans here. At least with the republicans we might get something good out of kicking the crap out of Iran. With Obama he has not had one good idea yet. He would be a horrible lame duck president. Spend ,spend and more spend..
Have to side with the republicans here. At least with the republicans we might get something good out of kicking the crap out of Iran. With Obama he has not had one good idea yet. He would be a horrible lame duck president. Spend ,spend and more spend..
Dennis, how can you side with going to war with Iran and then end your post by bashing Obama for spending? I mean, I am not advocating wasteful spending, but I am solidly against any additional wars. And while "Obamacare" may not be the best answer for our healthcare problems, I don't think working towards affordable healthcare is a bad idea.
And what good have we gotten for "kicking the crap out of" Iraq? If anything, we have strengthened Iran.
Jeremy, i guess it depends how you look at it. I am against war in general. We have all these fantastic stratigies on preserving freedom though. Look what happened while we watched Adolph Hitler desimate Europe, and then what had to be done to finally stop him. Affordible health care is a good idea. Lets get real affordible and fare healthcare though. We can not run our hospitals on the 3 cents on the dollar payments for medicare. I understand where you are coming from about strengthening Iran, but i really believe that is only temporary and not as much as you think.
We need smart people to fix or redirect what is broken. I fear it may be to late. Thank you Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush and now Mr. Obama.
"Affordible health care is a good idea. Lets get real affordible and fare healthcare though"
I agree, but other than saying "We must repeal Obamacare", what are any of the Republican politicians doing to help? The individual mandate that everyone seems up in arms about today, was, in fact, introduced by GOP lawmakers when Clinton was president. Google what Newt Gingrich said about the individual mandate in the 90's when he was a congressman. Instead of addressing the FACT that US healthcare costs are out of control, they now spin it to say it is "socialist" to address the costs. But the kicker is, somehow it is not "socialist" to tell us who we should marry or imposing hurdles for women to have a medical procedure done???
What it does not say is that oil production is up on private land not public. He has not let the well's on puplic land start back up. He also has not let the off shore well's get started going again. Got to love him though. He could sell anything.
Hybrid Mode
