SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Politics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: simplicity who wrote (473638)2/24/2012 1:19:22 AM
From: KLP
   of 564856
 
LOL! Wonder how our Papillion Caesar would look in this one....



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: KLP who wrote (473570)2/24/2012 1:25:36 AM
From: KLP
1 Recommendation   of 564856
 
Out for just a bit today....Same local station was $4.09 today, up $0.10 from YESTERDAY......was $3.99/regular

What is driving the price up so high so fast? I'm with unclewest....there must be some reason we aren't being told.....

Iran has been saber rattling for months, and gas was fairly stead.....so what is the difference this week....?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: longnshort who wrote (473575)2/24/2012 1:31:04 AM
From: KLP
2 Recommendations   of 564856
 



Today’s Gas Prices Aren’t Bush’s or Iran’s Fault: These Are Barack Obama’s Gas Prices


by AWR Hawkins


During last night’s debate in Mesa, AZ, moderator CNN’s John King suggested Iran’s behavior was driving gas prices up, and asked the candidates how they’d deal with Iran in order to stabilize the price of petroleum. What an asinine question! Our gas-price problem isn’t because of Iran, rather, it’s because of Barack Obama. If we were drilling for our own oil, as Sarah Palin suggested in 2008 with “Drill Here, Drill Now,” it wouldn’t matter what Iran was doing with their crude, for we would be producing enough oil at home to drastically cut (and eventually eliminate) our use of foreign oil.



Seriously folks, King’s question struck me as way for him to lay down cover for Obama, who has spent his presidency looking for cover and scapegoats to explain away his failure. (Those aren’t my words alone – in a recent USAToday poll 50% of respondents said they’d rank Obama as a failure, while only 44% said he was a success.)

Obama was blaming Bush before Obama ever got elected. Surely you remember how the world’s low opinion of the U.S. was “Bush’s fault” and the failures of General Motors and Chrysler were “Bush’s fault” too (according to Obama, of course). And once he entered the White House, Obama kept pointing back to Bush every time something went wrong. Obama’s deficit spending in 2009 was “Bush’s fault,” the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was “Bush’s fault,” and as recently as December 2011, the faltering economy Obama had spent 2 years and 11 months destroying was “Bush’s fault.”

Now the gas crisis we’re embarking upon is Iran’s fault? Sorry folks, but I’m not going to drink the Kool-Aid which John King and the rest of the Obama surrogates are trying to pass around.



Our gas prices are, at this very moment, bumping up against $6 a gallon in some parts of the country. It isn’t Bush’s fault, and it isn’t Iran’s fault either. Rather, it’s Obama’s fault for denying us the very crude that lies in rich deposits throughout the continental U.S., Alaska, and just off our shores. Keep that in mind when you fill your gas tank this week and in the weeks to come, and the price you pay for gasoline destroys your household budget.

Even if Iran cuts off all oil to our country, Obama is ultimately to blame for the jump in gasoline prices. From day one, he and those he has placed around him have done all they can to prevent us from drilling here, and drilling now.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: FUBHO who wrote (473621)2/24/2012 1:35:10 AM
From: FUBHO
3 Recommendations   of 564856
 
Where's the Outrage?

Philip Terzian
February 23, 2012 5:50 PM


Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times is sad that the transitional government in Egypt is putting 16 American citizens on trial for promoting democracy in Egypt. David Ignatius of the Washington Post is worried that the nascent Muslim Brotherhood might stick to its principles in governing Egypt and fail to embrace moderation.

I am neither sad nor worried about the direction of the government in Egypt, which threw off the Mubarak dictatorship last year and now seems to be sliding toward an Islamist regime. Whatever happens in Egypt will happen, and the United States government must deal with it. I am, however, furious about the 16 Americans currently held hostage in Cairo, and mystified by the casual reaction to this episode in the United States.

Of course, I assume that back channel negotiations are underway, and that the Obama administration is attempting to persuade the Egyptians—I am speaking diplomatically here—that it would not be in their interest to hold innocent Americans hostage, or subject them to a kangaroo trial and imprisonment (or worse) on trumped-up charges. In which case the relative public silence of the U.S. government is comprehensible.

Or maybe not. To begin with, the accused Americans had been accredited under the repressive Mubarak regime, and there is no evidence that they were doing anything other than what comparable NGOs do in similar circumstances: Promote democracy within the laws and customs of host countries. Citing Egyptian claims that the Americans were agents of the CIA and/or Israel, Friedman concludes that this episode represents a last gasp of the Mubarak regime and that, sooner or later, wiser heads will prevail. I am not so sure. It could just as easily be seen as a precursor of things to come; and based on what is known of public opinion in Egypt, has enhanced, not reduced, the popularity of the transitional government.

During the Falklands War (1982) a senior British officer commented that Great Britain had invested billions of pounds in defense since 1945, and that it would all appear to have been wasted if they couldn't "knock the skin off a rice pudding." Something of the same logic obtains here since this is a crisis of elementary dimensions. The "transitional government" in Cairo cannot fail to be impressed by the weak, importunate posture of the United States government. Sixteen innocent American citizens -- including the son of a cabinet secretary, for God's sake -- are being held hostage by the junta in a country that not only enjoys diplomatic relations with the United States but has been the recipient of tens of billions of dollars in assistance in recent decades.

As Robert Dole once said, where's the outrage?










Source URL: weeklystandard.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Paul Smith who wrote (473530)2/24/2012 1:44:40 AM
From: KLP
1 Recommendation   of 564856
 
Carl M. Cannon must think he's hot stuff, writing an article like the "takeaways from the debate"....In fact, his article is so slanted that one has to take a shower after reading it, as it is so left leaning, the reader feels scummy.....

Take out the adjectives and adverbs....put them on a clean piece of paper, then read his story.....You will see instantly what he is doing....and the direction he is headed.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: MrLucky who wrote (473532)2/24/2012 1:46:22 AM
From: KLP
3 Recommendations   of 564856
 
Ever wonder how Newt would do in the Secretary of State role?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Carolyn who wrote (473632)2/24/2012 1:57:54 AM
From: Farmboy
1 Recommendation   of 564856
 
Amen - that arrogant turkey thinks of no one but himself, for sure!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Brumar89 who wrote (463632)2/24/2012 2:01:01 AM
From: average joe
   of 564856
 
Eh? Well Brumar I may be Canadian but ethnically I am American all the way.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: KLP who wrote (473646)2/24/2012 2:07:40 AM
From: SmoothSail
   of 564856
 
so what is the difference this week....?

Wonder if it has anything to do with Iran shutting off oil to Europe in retaliation for the sanctions. And oil flow from Libya has gone down to a trickle.

We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and the Saudis, but it's a worldwide market.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: SmoothSail who wrote (473653)2/24/2012 2:26:08 AM
From: KLP
2 Recommendations   of 564856
 
Thought this would have been posted, but don't see it: Heritage.org: Obama Half Truths about Oil/Gas....


High Gas Prices: Obama's Half-Truths vs. Reality


By Nicolas Loris
February 23, 2012




The national average for gas prices is almost $3.60 per gallon, increasing 40 cents from a year ago and jumping 20 cents from just one month ago. [1] Prices are already surpassing $4 per gallon in some states and could threaten the country’s economic recovery. Higher gas prices drive up production costs for goods reliant on transportation, and more money spent at the pump means less money spent at restaurants and movie theaters. Buying fewer goods and services tightens the economic vice and holds back job creation.

Almost 70 percent of the price of gasoline comes from the price of crude oil, with excise taxes, refining costs, and retail/distribution making up the other 30 percent. [2] Exporting refined petroleum products comprises a small percentage of total domestic gas production and marginally impacts prices. Despite demand for oil falling in the United States as a result of a weaker economy and a warm winter curbing the use of heating oil, the industrial rise growth of China and India continue to put upward pressure on the price of oil. The threat of Iran restricting oil exports to Europe is also driving up the global price, impacting gas prices in the U.S.

President Obama addressed these issues Thursday, February 23, in a speech on gas prices [3] in which he continued to take many facts out of context. While the President that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, he creates a false dichotomy that suggests that micromanaging the solution from Washington by subsidizing uneconomical technologies and sources of energy would work. This approach would do little to provide America with new, reliable, and economical sources of energy and in fact would cause more harm than good to the consumer and taxpayer. America knows what works to effectively combat high gas prices: allowing the market to work by opening access to the country’s own oil and gas reserves, reducing onerous regulations, and allowing producers and consumers to respond to energy prices without Washington’s interference. Here are five half-truths that one continually hears about gas prices and five actions that Congress and the Administration can take to effectively combat high gas prices.

Half-truth #1: Oil production is the highest it has been in eight years.

Increased oil and gas production is the U.S. is a great development, but this is a result of increased production on private lands in North Dakota, Texas, and Alaska. On federal lands and offshore, the story is much grimmer. Production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded more output, increasing supply and therefore putting downward pressure on oil prices. Poor administrative decisions—such as refusing to open areas to exploration and production, cancelling or delaying lease sales, and the offshore drilling moratorium and subsequent “permitorium”—significantly reduced oil production, destroying jobs and reducing economic activity in the process.

If there is an economic interest to produce this oil, Washington should allow companies to do so. In North Dakota, oil production is booming and unemployment is low. There should be more stories like this.

Half-truth #2: Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade.

This has been the mantra of the anti-drilling crowd for years, and the longer politicians listen to the message, the longer the nation’s oil resources will remain undeveloped. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future. Furthermore, some of this oil can reach the market in much less than a decade if the permitting process is streamlined and the Keystone XL pipeline—which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries—is built.

Half-truth #3: Oil is not enough. America has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

President Obama frequently uses this number to push federal investments in alternative sources of energy that cannot stand the test of the market. The reality is that he uses this number deceptively. According to the Institute for Energy Research:

[A]lthough the U.S. is said to have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, or more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. One reason to view “reserves” estimates with caution is the fact that they are constantly in flux. In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, the U.S. produced over 150 percent of the proved reserves that it had in 1980. If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase, providing much more production over decades to come. In other words, reserves are not a stagnant number. [4]

Half-truth #4: Oil is not enough. The country needs an “all-of-the-above” approach to reduce its dependence on oil.

President Obama mentioned this approach in his 2012 State of the Union address, saying, “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.” [5] But a market-based strategy is the only all-of-the-above approach. It allows all energy sources to compete, drives innovation, and results in the best possible supply and pricing. Sadly, all-of-the-above is often just an excuse to subsidize uneconomical and politically preferred technologies and energy sources, which leads to a “pigs-at-the-trough” strategy.

Whether they are for biofuels, electric vehicles, or natural gas vehicles, subsidies for alternative fuel and vehicle technologies waste taxpayer dollars, misallocate labor and capital, and create a dependence on government that promotes crony capitalism. The world petroleum market is a multi-trillion-dollar one; whatever technology can capture a portion of that market will not need help from taxpayers.

Half-truth #5: Speculators are driving up the price of gas, and they need to be reined in.

Finger-pointing at speculators and investigating prices at the pump ignore the real cause of rising gas prices: supply and demand. Oil futures markets can affect prices at the pump by changing the amount of gasoline delivered to gas stations. If producers anticipate higher prices in the future, they might take some oil off the market today and wait to sell it later. This may be happening to some degree (although there has been little historical evidence of this [6]), especially given Iranian threats to cut off supply to European markets, but it would cause only a marginal short-run increase in prices, because at some point businesses have to unload the inventories they accumulate.

Five Actions for Congress and the Administration

Congress and the Administration should:

Get moving on permits. As the only country in the world that places a majority of its territorial waters off-limits to oil and gas exploration, the U.S. should at the very least be drilling in the areas where access is permitted. Removing the de facto moratorium on drilling would immediately increase supply, create jobs, and bring in royalty revenue to federal and state governments. Require lease sales when ready. Congress should open areas that are off-limits: the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Alaska’s offshore, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and lands out West. Congress should require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sales if a commercial interest exists to explore and drill. Congress should also provide the funding necessary to lease new onshore and offshore areas to oil and gas companies. Although it would take time for the federal government to lease these areas and for the energy companies to develop them, at least the process could begin. Create a sensible review processes. Placing a 270-day time limit on environmental reviews would ensure a quick review process for energy projects on federal lands. Construction projects on federal lands take an average of 4.4 years. The 270 days would allow for a thorough environmental review process but would not prevent investments from moving forward. [7] Remove regulatory delays and limit litigation.Environmental activists delay new energy projects by filing endless administrative appeals and lawsuits. Creating a manageable time frame for permitting and for groups or individuals to contest energy plans would keep potentially cost-effective ventures from being tied up for years in litigation while allowing the public and interested parties to voice opposition or support for these projects. Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Congress should use its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations to accept the State Department’s conclusion that construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk. [8] Approving the pipeline would create jobs and increase energy production—both of which the nation desperately needs—from a friendly supplier and ally.
    Let the Market Work

    The market would respond if Congress and the Obama Administration allow it to work. Oil companies would respond by increasing their production, and consumers would switch to more fuel-efficient cars without any need to mandate more fuel-efficient trucks and cars. If the price of gasoline continues to rise, it will make alternative technologies all the more economically competitive. But policies that restrict oil exploration, refining, and production should not artificially drive that price higher.

    Nicolas D. Loris is a Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.