• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$7 gallon gas to meet Obama's targets for emissions?

It is time to throw this idiot and his minions out of office. I hope all the people who voted for 'change' are regaining their wits before they drive us back to third world status over a total sham!

Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com
This makes sense. Shifting any taxes towards the consumption side of the economic equation is always preferable to taxing incomes.

Furthermore, our dependence on oil is killing us on multiple fronts. One, it's the primary reason for such a massive trade imbalance. It makes us susceptible to price shocks if supplies go up/down.

$6 a gallon would be a good thing in the long-term economic health of this country.
You bet! Let's do it Soviet style. We can all live in concrete tenaments and be right under their thumbs like they want us.

Hey, I have a good idea, let's toss the Socialist/statists out on their ears. Manmade global warming and the effects of man generated carbon dioxide are nothing more than like health care. They are vehicles that are hyped up and misused, soley for the purpose of grabbing you and me by the short hairs!;)
:roll:

Please. You've never been to the USSR. You've never lived in the USSR. Stop comparing Obama to Stalin or Lenin.
..and if you believe that, I've got a bridge for sale. Which side of the spectrum do you think this slop comes from?

You ever heard of trial balloons? To think that the Leftest Apparatchiks had nothing to do with this 'study' is totally foolhardy.

What people do not realize is that this administration will push statism/socialism as far and as fast as they think the gullible rank and file liberals will buy it. That goes for the 'centrists' and the 'moderates' as well.

There is an old saying and I think it is Biblical. "You are neither hot nor cold and I will spew you out"
Look man, Bush hasn't put the conservative movement in a moral high-ground where it can lecture others about things such as spending and size of government. I hate a large and overly intrusive government, but Obama wasn't the one that started this, he's just a continuation of what was done in WH when Bush was president.
 
This makes sense. Shifting any taxes towards the consumption side of the economic equation is always preferable to taxing incomes.

Furthermore, our dependence on oil is killing us on multiple fronts. One, it's the primary reason for such a massive trade imbalance. It makes us susceptible to price shocks if supplies go up/down.

$6 a gallon would be a good thing in the long-term economic health of this country.

:roll:

Please. You've never been to the USSR. You've never lived in the USSR. Stop comparing Obama to Stalin or Lenin.

Look man, Bush hasn't put the conservative movement in a moral high-ground where it can lecture others about things such as spending and size of government. I hate a large and overly intrusive government, but Obama wasn't the one that started this, he's just a continuation of what was done in WH when Bush was president.

And Clinton, and Bush Sr, and Reagan...
 
......Furthermore, our dependence on oil is killing us on multiple fronts......

Yes but!!!! Why do you suppose this is? How about because we have let the whacko environmentalist and Liberals keep us from developing our own oil resources with phony pictures of Polar Bears dying from melting ice packs.

And as far as not having lived in the Soviet Union? You don't think that the proliferation of material available on life in under Stalin, Lenin, et al, is sufficient to form a reasonable picture?
 
Doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not, but peak oil is going to happen. Certinally by 30-40 years, then pretty much all cars have to be electric cars/hydrogen cars. That's because there isn't that much oil left and the remaining oil is going to be expensive, much more than 7 dollars.

The problem today is that the ones who are buying electric cars are tree huggers who want those butt ugly expensive streamlined cars, with a large font to show how enviromental they are. Increasing the price won't help right now, when there aren't very many good alternatives. If it did, then why do people still drive gasoline cars in European countries who allready have 7-9 dollars a gallon

The government should rather try to make sure that electric/hydrogen car companies end up in the US, rather than in Asia.
 
Last edited:
.... Certinally by 30-40 years, then pretty much all cars have to be electric cars. That's because there isn't that much oil left and the remaining oil is going to be expensive, much more than 7 dollars. ......

This statement is a little bit short sighted. What in Heavens name will we produce the electricity with, windmills?

The leftist liberal, whackos want us to tear down the dams, have tried to kill the coal industry, have killed nuclear electric generation, have all but put oil bearing shale lands off limits, have prohibited offshore oil exploration and are trying to kill an economy that could hopefully come up with a new solution.

Do you think that Big Brother's involvement developed the original coal industry that got the industrial revolution started, do you really think that Big Brother was responsible for the discovery and the developement of the petro-chemical industry that put the US on top of the world heap?

I tell you that the proponents of this anti-oil business have another agenda. Case in point, Al Gore for starters. Taxing the one remaining source of reasonably priced energy then spending it to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg, is as foolhardy a perscription for this energy question as was ever proposed.
 
Last edited:
This statement is a little bit short sighted. What in Heavens name will we produce the electricity with, windmills?

The leftist liberal, whackos want us to tear down the dams, have tried to kill the coal industry, have killed nuclear electric generation, have all but put oil bearing shale lands off limits, have prohibited offshore oil exploration and are trying to kill an economy that could hopefully come up with a new solution.

Do you think that Big Brother's involvement developed the original coal industry that got the industrial revolution started, do you really think that Big Brother was responsible for the discovery and the developement of the petro-chemical industry that put the US on top of the world heap?

I tell you that the proponents of this anti-oil business have another agenda. Case in point, Al Gore for starters. Taxing the one remaining source of reasonably priced energy then spending it to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg, is as foolhardy a perscription for this energy question as was ever proposed.

What will we produce energy with? Coal, Nuclear power, and renewable energies. Coal is on the rise, and oil plants are declining. This is not about global warming, this is about US dependence on oil.

Big brothers involvement have always been there, both good and bad. The government must make sure that the conditions for private enterprise to create renewable energy is good. Liberals want to force people, conservatives want to give incentives and remove unnecessary regulations. For instance government should try to remove health insurance from the employer and get rid of the labor unions, because they are destroying the automobile industry.
 
Excuse me sir, but the sign clearly says, "Don't feed the troll."
 
Doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not, but peak oil is going to happen.
Peak oil has already happened in most oil producing countries around the world.

This statement is a little bit short sighted. What in Heavens name will we produce the electricity with, windmills?

The leftist liberal, whackos want us to tear down the dams, have tried to kill the coal industry, have killed nuclear electric generation, have all but put oil bearing shale lands off limits, have prohibited offshore oil exploration and are trying to kill an economy that could hopefully come up with a new solution.

Do you think that Big Brother's involvement developed the original coal industry that got the industrial revolution started, do you really think that Big Brother was responsible for the discovery and the developement of the petro-chemical industry that put the US on top of the world heap?

I tell you that the proponents of this anti-oil business have another agenda. Case in point, Al Gore for starters. Taxing the one remaining source of reasonably priced energy then spending it to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg, is as foolhardy a perscription for this energy question as was ever proposed.
Your ranting aside, would you back a feasible energy plan that didnt involve fossil fuels or nuclear generation?
 
Yes but!!!! Why do you suppose this is? How about because we have let the whacko environmentalist and Liberals keep us from developing our own oil resources with phony pictures of Polar Bears dying from melting ice packs.
A decade ago, yes, that would have helped. If it's economically feasible now, then the oil companies should do it.

However, at the moment we're facing the demand of EU, US, India and China all at once vying for the same resource. The production of oil will increase, no doubt. But, the demand will skyrocket and will easily outstrip the supply. We're up a creek on this one and it's difficult if impossible to get out.

Lastly, on issues of the environment, I'm going to side with the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Green Republicans when it comes to how we should use our natural resources :) .
And as far as not having lived in the Soviet Union? You don't think that the proliferation of material available on life in under Stalin, Lenin, et al, is sufficient to form a reasonable picture?
Dude, I was born in the USSR (came to US in '92 when I was less than 10 years old.) I've read books about it and heard stories from family and friends. The USSR was a horrid ****-hole.

Obama, as I've always say and will continue to say, is not a communist, muslim or fascist. In my eyes he is a naive and unprepared administrator who lacks a fundamental understanding of how an economy works (and what needs to not be done to make it work) that is trying to make things work, but failing badly at it. No, I don't think he's sitting around with others in his cabinet and actively thinking of how to turn the country into a socialist paradise of some sort. His policies suck and his VP choice made me think: Really? Biden? Bob the Dog Catcher could've been a better choice...

Furthermore, it would be an insult to the millions that have died at the hands of Hitler and Stalin to compare Obama to those monsters. The left tried this **** back when Bush was still president (remember "BUSHHITLER!!! BUSHHITLER!!!") and compared him to all sorts of dictators and, in my eyes, pretty much dissed the millions of victims that died under Nazi oppression. Why would you make similarly poorly thought out comparisons that only offend those that have perished? I strongly dislike the left and the marchers that took to the streets when Bush was president and whined just about everything that they could think of and I'm not going to go down the same misguided path that they have by saying that Obama is a communist dictator.
 
Peak oil has already happened in most oil producing countries around the world.

Not really, it happen in some countries, but others it hasn't happen yet. This can be easily seen from this diagram
cclt20090516.png
 
Last edited:
A decade ago, yes, that would have helped. If it's economically feasible now, then the oil companies should do it.

However, at the moment we're facing the demand of EU, US, India and China all at once vying for the same resource. The production of oil will increase, no doubt. But, the demand will skyrocket and will easily outstrip the supply. We're up a creek on this one and it's difficult if impossible to get out.

It won't even matter, baring two exceptions. The problem with people like Boomyal is that they are exceedingly unaware of how oil actually works. They think that allowing US expansion of its relatively absolute production capacity will lower prices and ensure oil flows to America. That would be the case if we nationalized our oil production like Mexico and Venezuela. In the rest of the world, oil is traded like every other commodity. Bought and sold on exchanges. The US simply does not have the capacity or the ability to quickly expand production to the point where it can actually effect total supply and thereby prices. Unlike OPEC, Russia and other large producers, we are simply too small of a seller to have any real effect upon oil exchange prices outside of mass speculation in the oil futures markets.

Analogously, the US is like a mom and pop grocery store and OPEC and Russia are WalMart Super Centers. There's no way we can materially change oil prices via production. Anyone who argues otherwise is completely ignorant to the basic understanding of exchanges and supply and demand.

We really should see the oil untapped in the US as nothing more then a stop gap to buy us time to get off oil entirely.

We really outta to be pouring billions of dollars into nuclear, both fission and fusion and upgrading our power system to carry electricity. We're in the last chapter of fossil fuels. It's just that some people don't see it.

What always amuses me is that the people calling for expansion of oil under the presumption it will lower prices in the US are often always those who want government out without realizing the only way to get lower prices in the US is to nationalize.
 
Last edited:
....The problem with people like Boomyal is that they are exceedingly unaware of how oil actually works.

Not so. The reverse, in fact, is true.

Oil prices are based on speculation as well as demand. The thinner the margin between demand and production, the higher speculators bid up the price. Potential US production, thrown on the world market, would broaden that margin causing oil prices to stabilize at affordable levels.

Undoubtedly, alternatives will someday become necessary but I say that the solution, like the energy sources to present, are not going to be squeezed out of massive, wasteful, inefficient government beauracracies.

The fact of the matter is that you have lost site of the premise of this topic. And that is the fact the the leftists would take any opportunity to milk this economy, via engergy, for the furtherance of their own social agendas.

As I said before, IMHO, Obama, et al, are not just a misguided, naive, inexperienced politicians. He hates this country, he hates capitalism and he would go as far to bring it down as the deluded citizenry will allow him. Social justice is just another term for mediocrity which would allow the Statist/socialists to step in with unfettered power.
 
Last edited:
Not so. The reverse, in fact, is true.

Your next line betrays that argument.

Oil prices are based on speculation as well as demand. The thinner the margin between demand and production, the higher speculators bid up the price. Potential US production thrown on the world market would broaden that margin causing oil prices to stabilize at an affordable level.

Except that potential US production lacks the absolute quantities necessary to produce such an impact. Again, the Walmart super store vs mom and pop grocery analogy. Now, if we had another Saudi Arabia suddenly come online, that would likely result in absolute drastic changes to total quantity and thus would change the factors within the exchanges. The US does not have such a capacity nor the ability to ramp up to produce such capacity. You are explicitly arguing that small price setters can materially change the global price.

Hence my earlier statement about your lack of awareness holds true.

The fact of the matter is that you have lost site of the premise of this topic. And that is the fact the the leftists would take any opportunity to milk this economy, via engergy, for the furtherance of their own social agendas.

How's the tin foil had coming along? Have you found financing to build your anti-liberal tin foil hat?

He hates this country, he hates capitalism and he would go as far to bring it down as far as the deluded citizenry will allow him.

Does someone who hates capitalism make a backroom promises not to renegotiate NAFTA?
Does someone who hates capitalism send billions to private industry to prop them up?

Take off your tin foil hat. It's bad for brain cells.

And look, another person ignorant of what socialism actually is.

You want cheaper gas? Nationalize.
 
..... Now, if we had another Saudi Arabia suddenly come online, that would likely result in absolute drastic changes to total quantity and thus would change the factors within the exchanges.....

And if you had your way, we would never have the opportunity to know if this was the case. Let the Libs (of which you are no doubt one) drive the price of energy, thru taxes, to unaffordable heights and it will kill the economy and the energy sector that has the ability to prove your scepticism naive.
 
The leftist liberal, whackos want us to tear down the dams, have tried to kill the coal industry, have killed nuclear electric generation, have all but put oil bearing shale lands off limits, have prohibited offshore oil exploration and are trying to kill an economy that could hopefully come up with a new solution.

Hhmm..what have we here boom.:2wave:

<President Obama to Announce Over $8B in Loan Guarantees for Nuclear>

<President Obama today will announce $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the first nuclear plants in the U.S. in almost three decades. Southern Company will reportedly use the loan guarantees to build two nuclear plants in Burke County, Ga.>

President Obama to Announce Over $8B in Loan Guarantees for Nuclear
 
Hhmm..what have we here boom.:2wave:

<President Obama to Announce Over $8B in Loan Guarantees for Nuclear>

<President Obama today will announce $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the first nuclear plants in the U.S. in almost three decades. Southern Company will reportedly use the loan guarantees to build two nuclear plants in Burke County, Ga.>

President Obama to Announce Over $8B in Loan Guarantees for Nuclear

Yes! I did hear him when he threw that bone to his detractors. And you have to admit he did it just before the wolfs were about to tear him apart. But now he has just made more enemies from his own camp because they will continue to scream and wail about nuclear waste. You know, the waste that piles up because his cohorts block any attempts to reprocess fuel and reduce the waste to near nil as they do elsewhere?
 
Yes! I did hear him when he threw that bone to his detractors. And you have to admit he did it just before the wolfs were about to tear him apart. But now he has just made more enemies from his own camp because they will continue to scream and wail about nuclear waste. You know, the waste that piles up because his cohorts block any attempts to reprocess fuel and reduce the waste to near nil as they do elsewhere?


Bone?:shock: A $8bill bone?When you take in consideration that there has not been any new plants has authorized since 1979.It pretty well says that the Obama Administration is serious about trying to limit our dependence on oil coming from countries that wish us no good will.
 
Bone?:shock: A $8bill bone?When you take in consideration that there has not been any new plants has authorized since 1979.It pretty well says that the Obama Administration is serious about trying to limit our dependence on oil coming from countries that wish us no good will.

Hey genious, First of all power plants dont run on oil. We have coal, Natural gas or hydo-electric. So building a couple nuclear plants may prevent more burning of coal but its not going to do anything to cut back on oil. If Chairman Obama wanted to limit our dependence on oil then why is he preventing oil companies in the US from drilling right here at home where we have more oil than any country in the world?
 
And if you had your way, we would never have the opportunity to know if this was the case.

Incorrect. Basic economics tells us this as repeated time and time again with other commodities. Increasing wheat production in a small producer cannot materially change global exchange prices of wheat. Small price setters are small price setters. The name is inherently self explanatory. What you are arguing is that small price setters are capable of actually being big price setters, thus a Mom and Pop grocery store could force a Wal-Mart Super center to lower prices significantly. That happens nowhere. Ever. Don't feel too bad. Most people have no understanding of economics here.

Let the Libs (of which you are no doubt one) drive the price of energy

Apparently having a grasp of economics makes me a liberal. And driving up the price of fossil creates market incentives for renewable. The industry we need to expand that can lead in manufacturing to create jobs and exports. Not to mention stop financing regimes that are diametrically opposed to our interests. I fail to see how staying in the oil exchange market which has long favored anti-US countries is beneficial to us. Perhaps you think funding Iran is a good idea. I don't know, I'm not you.

taxes, to unaffordable heights and it will kill the economy and the energy sector that has the ability to prove your scepticism naive.

Kill the economy? Do you even know what electric vehicles are? Perhaps natural gas? Furthermore, very few people in this country get their non-vehicular power from oil.

Come back when you have a better grasp of the subject. You clearly are arguing from positions of sheer ignorance. I see you ignored my questions about someone who has created further supports to the capitalist system in the US allegedly hates it.
 
Last edited:
Hey genious, First of all power plants dont run on oil. We have coal, Natural gas or hydo-electric. So building a couple nuclear plants may prevent more burning of coal but its not going to do anything to cut back on oil. If Chairman Obama wanted to limit our dependence on oil then why is he preventing oil companies in the US from drilling right here at home where we have more oil than any country in the world?

Furthermore, 'a couple of nuclear power plants' are nothing but window dressing. They would hardly make up for all the Hydro-Electric facilities that the Libs and all their minions would like to tear down.
 
Hey genious, First of all power plants dont run on oil.

Incorrect. Check Hawaii's electrical sources. Not to mention outlying small town across America. The majority of power plants don't use oil, but some do.

We have coal, Natural gas or hydo-electric. So building a couple nuclear plants may prevent more burning of coal but its not going to do anything to cut back on oil.

We don't have a power problem. We have a liquid fuel problem. Which is partially our own fault dating back to the 70s.

If Chairman Obama wanted to limit our dependence on oil then why is he preventing oil companies in the US from drilling right here at home where we have more oil than any country in the world?

Because he's thinking about more then today? Only those extremely ignorant of oil and economics thinks that increasing production by immaterial amounts which are then traded internationally is going to reduce our dependence.

When the rest of the world runs out, we'll be sitting on the remainder. Furthermore, having the oil does give us some time in case we need it. It doesn't make sense to blow all your assets at once when you know you need them to buy them in the future.
 
Hey genious, First of all power plants dont run on oil. We have coal, Natural gas or hydo-electric. So building a couple nuclear plants may prevent more burning of coal but its not going to do anything to cut back on oil. If Chairman Obama wanted to limit our dependence on oil then why is he preventing oil companies in the US from drilling right here at home where we have more oil than any country in the world?


Hey Sherlock, you might might just want to do a bit more research on the subject.When you do you will find that oil provides the power for at least 40 percent of all of the nation's power needs. :2wave:
 
It won't even matter, baring two exceptions. The problem with people like Boomyal is that they are exceedingly unaware of how oil actually works. They think that allowing US expansion of its relatively absolute production capacity will lower prices and ensure oil flows to America. That would be the case if we nationalized our oil production like Mexico and Venezuela. In the rest of the world, oil is traded like every other commodity. Bought and sold on exchanges. The US simply does not have the capacity or the ability to quickly expand production to the point where it can actually effect total supply and thereby prices. Unlike OPEC, Russia and other large producers, <Snip>

Analogously, the US is like a mom and pop grocery store and OPEC and Russia are WalMart Super Centers. There's no way we can materially change oil prices via production. Anyone who argues otherwise is completely ignorant to the basic understanding of exchanges and supply and demand.

We really should see the oil untapped in the US as nothing more then a stop gap to buy us time to get off oil entirely.

We really outta to be pouring billions of dollars into nuclear, both fission and fusion and upgrading our power system to carry electricity. We're in the last chapter of fossil fuels. It's just that some people don't see it.

What always amuses me is that the people calling for expansion of oil under the presumption it will lower prices in the US are often always those who want government out without realizing the only way to get lower prices in the US is to nationalize.

What a bunch of BS

We have more oil undrground & off our shores than Saudi Arabia yet you call it a stop gap at best.

Please explain how Nationalizing brings prices down? It wont without goverment (or should I say taxpayer) subsidizing. More competition & more supply will bring the price down and this has been proven.

we are simply too small of a seller to have any real effect upon oil exchange prices outside of mass speculation in the oil futures markets.
And if we tapped into the the vast reserves we have we could become a major player and could have an effect.
 
Furthermore, 'a couple of nuclear power plants' are nothing but window dressing. They would hardly make up for all the Hydro-Electric facilities that the Libs and all their minions would like to tear down.
And wanting to close down Yucca mountain shows you just how interested he is in nuclear power
 
What a bunch of BS

We have more oil undrground & off our shores than Saudi Arabia yet you call it a stop gap at best.

Cute. But stupid. Tell me, is that oil LSC? Or is it the more heavy, sour, more expensive, less useful oils? The kind that take much longer to get out of the ground, are more expensive and yield significantly less barrels per overall net cost? The kind that takes years to expand to any real significant amounts? The kind of oil that isn't what we normally hear of?

The kind of oil the US government receives in royalty payments and then promptly turns around to sell at a low price and used to buy LSC for the strategic reserve?

Hint: I'm right, you are wrong, get used to it.

People here have this asinine belief that all oil is the same. I really wonder just how many people even made it out of high school. I know for a fact that the vast majority of people here don't have a masters.

Please explain how Nationalizing brings prices down? It wont without goverment (or should I say taxpayer) subsidizing.

Nationalization generally implies subsidizing as that is what happens in virtually all nationalized industries. Furthermore, nationalization in oil prevents pricing on international competitive markets. Essentially the government sets the price and it sets it low. You want cheap oil? Nationalize.

More competition & more supply will bring the price down and this has been proven.

Only if the supply is materially large enough. Which we cannot do quickly, cheaply or efficiently.

And if we tapped into the the vast reserves we have we could become a major player and could have an effect.

Cute. Someone who thinks all oil is the same. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom