• 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!

Gas prices climb to four-month high

I've got a guy who can look at your sarcasm detector for you. Good guy, cheap
rates.

So, maybe you can help educate me then. How does higher gas prices further the Obama Agenda?

He could give it away for free and it wouldn't help his agenda.

I wish you guys would open your eyes and realize his legacy means very little to him.

He looking for results, and their based on his underlining contempt of our free market system.
 
I've got a guy who can look at your sarcasm detector for you. Good guy, cheap rates.

So, maybe you can help educate me then. How does higher gas prices further the Obama Agenda?

Really? Are you serious? Need I remind you of "energy prices necessarily skyrocketing"? Not to mention it is a hidden tax on the poor, so Obama gets to be 'for the little guy' while screwing him at the same time.
 
Really? Are you serious? Need I remind you of "energy prices necessarily skyrocketing"? Not to mention it is a hidden tax on the poor, so Obama gets to be 'for the little guy' while screwing him at the same time.

And how does this make Obama's life better? High gas prices helpful for a political party, are they?
 
He could give it away for free and it wouldn't help his agenda.

I wish you guys would open your eyes and realize his legacy means very little to him.

He looking for results, and their based on his underlining contempt of our free market system.

Yes yes. Blame the media. Blame single women. Blame hispanic and black people. Blame the poor. And blame conspiracies too, tell yourself the other guys are literal supervillains, just wanting to hurt the country because.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason minorities and the poor voted for Obama was because you guys kept telling them they were leeches on society who only vote for handouts. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that your freaking presidential candidate decided that not paying federal income taxes means you "can't be convinced to take responsibility." A group, incidentally, that includes virtually every retired senior and deployed combat troops. Yes. Deployed combat troops can't be convinced to take responsibility, eh Romney?

You straight, white, Republican men vote on ideology, though, right? Sincere beliefs and patriotism, right? It just doesn't seem to occur to some of you that other people do the same thing, or that liberals also have jobs.

That is why you lost the election, and unless the GOP can figure this out they will continue to lose elections.
 
And how does this make Obama's life better? High gas prices helpful for a political party, are they?

Oh so you think they are hurting the demo's? Tell me, when is the last time you saw a report with Chuck Schumer standing in front of a gas station price board? Was it during the Obama term? Or the Bush presidency?
 
You all know the president has little to no control over gas prices right? They fluctuate on the global market and many factors go into it.

You know what is leading to higher gas prices? The devaluation of our currency. The dollar isn't worth much more than the paper it is printed on. You guys are pointing the finger at Obama when it should be at Bernanke on this one.
 
You all know the president has little to no control over gas prices right? They fluctuate on the global market and many factors go into it.

You know what is leading to higher gas prices? The devaluation of our currency. The dollar isn't worth much more than the paper it is printed on. You guys are pointing the finger at Obama when it should be at Bernanke on this one.

Or it could be a rise in global demand, being a global product and all. You know, that free market thing?
 
Or it could be a rise in global demand, being a global product and all. You know, that free market thing?

That is one reason sure...but you cannot deny the value loss of our currency playing a factor in this.
 
That is one reason sure...but you cannot deny the value loss of our currency playing a factor in this.

And what policies could be being furthered by the Obama administration, including the Treasury, and Fed, to cause a loss in value to our currency at the moment.....?.....Hmmmm....I wonder....

:roll:
 
And what policies could be being furthered by the Obama administration, including the Treasury, and Fed, to cause a loss in value to our currency at the moment.....?.....Hmmmm....I wonder....

:roll:

The same policies that have been followed since well before Obama was a sperm in his father's testicles
 
The same policies that have been followed since well before Obama was a sperm in his father's testicles

That's not entirely true now is it.....Look AC, tell the truth, Obama put the digital printing press on steroids, which has undercut the confidence in the dollar.
 
That's not entirely true now is it.....Look AC, tell the truth, Obama put the digital printing press on steroids, which has undercut the confidence in the dollar.

I look at this:

CPI Inflation Calculator

That is a calculator of inflation.

Our currency has been devaluing at relatively steady rate. It tells me that no one administration has been completely at fault, but the policies of The Fed have been. Not one administration has tried to audit or stop the printing which puts blame on a lot of other administrations including the current one.
 
You all know the president has little to no control over gas prices right? They fluctuate on the global market and many factors go into it.

You know what is leading to higher gas prices? The devaluation of our currency. The dollar isn't worth much more than the paper it is printed on. You guys are pointing the finger at Obama when it should be at Bernanke on this one.


Half truth. Although the "value" of the dollar is probably a greater contributor, tell me global oil prices wouldn't decrease rapidly if the current occupier of the White House announced we were opening up all federal lands including ANWR to oil recovery and encouraging building new refineries. Oh and add approval of Keystone. One last addition, pronounce America would be energy independent in four years.
 
Half truth. Although the "value" of the dollar is probably a greater contributor, tell me global oil prices wouldn't decrease rapidly if the current occupier of the White House announced we were opening up all federal lands including ANWR to oil recovery and encouraging building new refineries. Oh and add approval of Keystone. One last addition, pronounce America would be energy independent in four years.

And how long would that last? We could go all in on everything drilling and pipelines....the continued devaluation of the currency will impact prices. You won't see long lasting reduction in prices for the extended future...could you for a few years? Possibly, but it wouldn't last very long at the current rate of inflation. Also, when other countries start to trade in something other than the dollar...well that inflation is going to ensure that nothing is cheap.
 
Half truth. Although the "value" of the dollar is probably a greater contributor, tell me global oil prices wouldn't decrease rapidly if the current occupier of the White House announced we were opening up all federal lands including ANWR to oil recovery and encouraging building new refineries. Oh and add approval of Keystone. One last addition, pronounce America would be energy independent in four years.

Global oil prices wouldn't decrease rapidly if the current occupier of the White House announced we were opening up all federal lands including ANWR to oil recovery and encouraging building new refineries. Oh and add approval of Keystone. And "pronouncing" (with a magic wand, I suppose) that America would be energy independent in four years.

The math doesn't work out, dude. Remember oil is a global commodity. You have to compare our theoretical increase in output with global supply and demand. Drop in the bucket.
 
I look at this:

CPI Inflation Calculator

That is a calculator of inflation.

Our currency has been devaluing at relatively steady rate. It tells me that no one administration has been completely at fault, but the policies of The Fed have been. Not one administration has tried to audit or stop the printing which puts blame on a lot of other administrations including the current one.


Well, on that I agree whole heartily....However, rather than go back and try and bring other past administrations in when there is no way they can do anything now, is the point. Obama's administration is in power, and has the ability to look at this real time, and see that this policy of artificially holding down inflation by ever increasing the money supply, even if digitally is going to come back a bite us all in the arse in terms of inflation down the road. That is a certainty.
 
Global oil prices wouldn't decrease rapidly if the current occupier of the White House announced we were opening up all federal lands including ANWR to oil recovery and encouraging building new refineries. Oh and add approval of Keystone. And "pronouncing" (with a magic wand, I suppose) that America would be energy independent in four years.

The math doesn't work out, dude. Remember oil is a global commodity. You have to compare our theoretical increase in output with global supply and demand. Drop in the bucket.

This is the damnable lie that needs to be exposed every time y'all try to use it...We are NOT a "drop in the bucket" in terms of the oil, and natural gas, and coal we have in the ground. We are, only if you and your ilk continue to keep that resource off limits to extract, and continue to keep us dependent on foreign imports.
 
This is the damnable lie that needs to be exposed every time y'all try to use it...We are NOT a "drop in the bucket" in terms of the oil, and natural gas, and coal we have in the ground. We are, only if you and your ilk continue to keep that resource off limits to extract, and continue to keep us dependent on foreign imports.

Keep using the word ilk. It really serves to strengthen your argument.

Now, I didn't say US production is a drop in the bucket. I'm saying the projected increase in oil output is a drop in the bucket when compared to total oil production.

According to the EIA:
"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."[25] "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."[25]

The projection puts its peak output between .4% and 1.2% of global production around 2030.
 
Keep using the word ilk. It really serves to strengthen your argument.

It was a proper usage of the term....

Noun
ilk (plural ilks)
A type, race or category; a group of entities that have common characteristics such that they may be grouped together.

Now, I didn't say US production is a drop in the bucket. I'm saying the projected increase in oil output is a drop in the bucket when compared to total oil production.

And I am saying that this is propaganda of those who want to artificially keep oil prices high to further the agenda of so called green energy....

According to the EIA:
"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."[25] "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."[25]
The projection puts its peak output between .4% and 1.2% of global production in 2030.

So you are relying on a government agency, under the control of the administration, that has the stated goal of 'energy prices necessarily skyrocketing'....mmmmmmmyeahok.
 
It was a proper usage of the term....

Noun
ilk (plural ilks)
A type, race or category; a group of entities that have common characteristics such that they may be grouped together.



And I am saying that this is propaganda of those who want to artificially keep oil prices high to further the agenda of so called green energy....



So you are relying on a government agency, under the control of the administration, that has the stated goal of 'energy prices necessarily skyrocketing'....mmmmmmmyeahok.

I'm such a doofus, I forgot to link my source. Sorry about that.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

The report was issued under the Bush administration.
 
I'm such a doofus, I forgot to link my source. Sorry about that.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf
The report was issued under the Bush administration.

I guess since I supported Bush in the wars, then oh, I must shrink from criticizing everything out of his, or any politicians administration just because they are GOP eh? Funny, you didn't like me using the word 'ilk' but have no problem lumping any conservative in with the big bad Bush boogey man....I love how that works.

Look, what makes you think that Bush was a true conservative in the first place? He wasn't. He was a big government guy on the right of center, just like your guy is a big government guy, but the difference is that at least Bush didn't want to "fundamentally transform" the country by tearing it down first.
 
I guess since I supported Bush in the wars, then oh, I must shrink from criticizing everything out of his, or any politicians administration just because they are GOP eh? Funny, you didn't like me using the word 'ilk' but have no problem lumping any conservative in with the big bad Bush boogey man....I love how that works.

Look, what makes you think that Bush was a true conservative in the first place? He wasn't. He was a big government guy on the right of center, just like your guy is a big government guy, but the difference is that at least Bush didn't want to "fundamentally transform" the country by tearing it down first.

Wow, talk about an attempt at redirection. This isn't a discussion about the size of government or wars. And I certainly wasn't lumping anyone into a group, merely disproving your assumption that this was a hostile Obama administration fudging the numbers. There isn't even a boogeyman here. You're so used to this kneejerk "LIBRULS BLAME BUSH" response that you just went and assumed I was blaming somebody for something. It's a report from an agency regarding expected oil production. I've no reason to suspect it was fraudulent, regardless of which person was in the white house at the time.

It's a discussion about oil production. Are you trying to tell me that the Bush administration was hostile enough to oil production that they had the EIA put out pessimistic numbers regarding the ANWR?

Do you have any other source with radically different numbers regarding the rate of projected production at ANWR?
 
Wow, talk about an attempt at redirection. This isn't a discussion about the size of government or wars. And I certainly wasn't lumping anyone into a group, merely disproving your assumption that this was a hostile Obama administration fudging the numbers. There isn't even a boogeyman here. You're so used to this kneejerk "LIBRULS BLAME BUSH" response that you just went and assumed I was blaming somebody for something. It's a report from an agency regarding expected oil production. I've no reason to suspect it was fraudulent, regardless of which person was in the white house at the time.

It's a discussion about oil production. Are you trying to tell me that the Bush administration was hostile enough to oil production that they had the EIA put out pessimistic numbers regarding the ANWR?

Do you have any other source with radically different numbers regarding the rate of projected production at ANWR?

No, I am telling you that like Mark Twain said so long ago, "there are three kinds of lies....Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Period. As a matter of course DC often manipulates numbers to their own benefit. So, did Bush try and open more lands to exploration? Yes he did. Did libs in congress block those attempts? Yes they did. Are we now sitting on huge energy reserves that we are not allowed to tap because of political considerations? Yes we are. And whom does that hurt the most? The poor, the working poor, and the middle classes....So let's be clear ok?
 
No, I am telling you that like Mark Twain said so long ago, "there are three kinds of lies....Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Period. As a matter of course DC often manipulates numbers to their own benefit. So, did Bush try and open more lands to exploration? Yes he did. Did libs in congress block those attempts? Yes they did. Are we now sitting on huge energy reserves that we are not allowed to tap because of political considerations? Yes we are. And whom does that hurt the most? The poor, the working poor, and the middle classes....So let's be clear ok?

Yes, let's be clear:

You're just handwaving away the numbers because you don't like what they say. Feel free to offer an alternative estimate of your choosing. Important note: rate of extraction is the key figure. A trillion barrels of oil does nobody any good if only one can be extracted per day. Conversely, if you extracted a trillion barrels of oil this week you'd see a supply glut and a major price reduction as companies tried to get rid of it all.
 
Yes, let's be clear:

You're just handwaving away the numbers because you don't like what they say. Feel free to offer an alternative estimate of your choosing. Important note: rate of extraction is the key figure. A trillion barrels of oil does nobody any good if only one can be extracted per day. Conversely, if you extracted a trillion barrels of oil this week you'd see a supply glut and a major price reduction as companies tried to get rid of it all.

Well, this is not a new argument for sure....But, I think that the numbers have been hashed, rehashed, and baked again and served in thread after thread. Let me approach it this way, do you agree that the US artificially holds down its production of oil, natural gas, and coal due to not only over burdensome regulation, but on political considerations as well?
 
Back
Top Bottom