Government can't do anything about gas prices? Then how did Bush lower it in 2008?

[teapartysamurai]

"President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico."

Isn't that what led us to the worst oil spill in history of the world?

.

No that would be Obama....

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

1. The Bush administration. The oil-drilling lease was sold to BP by the George W. Bush administration in 2007 under its 2007–2012 Five-Year Offshore Oil-drilling Plan.

2. The Obama administration. The actual exploratory drilling was approved by the Obama administration on April 6, 2009.

Within days of the 2009 approval, the Center and our allies won a court order vacating the Bush Five-Year Offshore Oil-drilling Plan. Rather than use the court order as a timeout on new offshore oil drilling to develop a new plan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar filed a special motion with the court to exempt approved oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. He specifically identified BP’s operation as one that should be released from the vacature.

In July 2009, the court agreed to Salazar’s request, releasing all approved offshore oil drilling — including the BP operation — from the vacature.

3. BP. BP has the worst environmental and safety record of any oil company operating in America. Even after the 2005 Texas City Refinery blast that killed 15 people, BP has continued to rack up safety violations. Despite the dangerous nature of all offshore oil drilling and BP’s own egregious safety record, the company’s exploration plan downplayed the possibility of a spill, repeatedly asserting that it was unlikely or virtually impossible. Amazingly, Secretary Salazar’s Minerals and Management Service approved BP’s exploration plan without any consideration of the environmental consequences of an oil spill.

4. The oil industry and its political backers. The Gulf crisis shows that the glib safety claims of the oil industry cannot be trusted.

There’s no way to guarantee that a massive oil rupture will not occur. And if one does occur, there’s no way to contain it quickly and fully enough to avert unacceptable environmental damage.

Ultimately, it’s the inherently dangerous nature of offshore oil drilling that led to this disaster. That’s why the Center is calling on the Obama administration to 1) revoke its 2010 decision to open up Alaska, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast to offshore oil drilling; 2) revoke all leases to drill off Alaska, including those held by Shell Oil; 3) not permit any new offshore drilling anywhere; and 3) transition the nation away from fossil fuel so the pressure to continue offshore oil drilling dissipates.

So then you're saying no more drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?

.

Then explain why Obama is funding Brazil to do exactly that?

http://timeonhands.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/obama-funds-drilling-in-gulf-of-mexico-by-brazil/


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

 

[editec]

It's not lack of supply that's driving up prices. It's uncertainty about Middle East governments and rampant speculation.

There are groups and individuals bidding up the price of crude with no intention of receiving a delivery of crude. They just want to profit on the price.

If I were president, I would ask congress to make a legal provision that if you speculate on the price of a commodity, you must have the facilities to receive delivery of that commodity.

I think the more appropate move might be to seriously to the shit out of speculative investments.

If you're NOT a supplier or an end consumer of the oil, the rate of taxes you pay for buying or selling futures contracts ought to be at a much higher rate than otherwise.

That would keep the futures mechanism in place (it is a good thing after all) but make PURE speculation a much riskier and costly way to invest.

Of course the flaw in this ointment is that specualtion might move offshore, right?

Instead of producers selling their contracts in Chicago, they might elect to sell them in London, right?

Frankly, I cannot see any solution to that.

The entire world and every government would have to sign onto such a plan and there's no way in hell that's gonna happen.

So I'm afraid as long as we agree that buying and selling futures is a good thing (and I think it is) we're going to have accept that specualtors will join in the fun along with the producers and consumers of those commodities.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not lack of supply that's driving up prices. It's uncertainty about Middle East governments and rampant speculation.

There are groups and individuals bidding up the price of crude with no intention of receiving a delivery of crude. They just want to profit on the price.

If I were president, I would ask congress to make a legal provision that if you speculate on the price of a commodity, you must have the facilities to receive delivery of that commodity.

I think the more appropate move might be to seriously to the shit out of speculative investments.

If you're NOT a supplier or an end consumer of the oil, the rate of taxes you pay for buying or selling futures contracts ought to be at a much higher rate than otherwise.

That would keep the futures mechanism in place (it is a good thing after all) but make PURE speculation a much riskier and costly way to invest.

Of course the flaw in this ointment is that specualtion might move offshore, right?

Instead of producers selling their contracts in Chicago, they might elect to sell them in London, right?

Frankly, I cannot see any solution to that.

The entire world and every government would have to sign onto such a plan and there's no way in hell that's gonna happen.

So I'm afraid as long as we agree that buying and selling futures is a good thing (and I think it is) we're going to have accept that specualtors will join in the fun along with the producers and consumers of those commodities.

I too believe that a healthy commodities market is a good thing. But I do not believe that profiting on speculation without the intent of actually taking delivery of that commodity is a very bad thing.

The analogy I like to cite is; I walk into a convenience store to buy a Snicker's bar. The candy is marked $.75 I pick up a Snicker's and, as I walk toward the counter someone with a price gun decides that my candy should be priced at $.80! Then, someone else marks the price at $.90. When I get to the clerk, someone else puts a $1.00 price tag on my candy. None of these folks ever intended to eat that candy bar. I pay the $1.00 and the clerk divvies up the $.25 markup between the three interlopers. I still have to pay a marked up price as the final consumer. The increase is just profit for those with access to a price gun.

How does this action serve to encourage more folks to buy Snicker's bars? Why should those folks marking up the price make as profit on something they never intended to buy in the first place?

 

[bripat9643]

Wasn't it also President Bush's fault that the price of gas increased?

But it's not Obama's fault that the price of gas is going up?

Libs don't know when to keep their mouth's shut.

 

[bripat9643]

"President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico."

Isn't that what led us to the worst oil spill in history of the world?

.

No, dipshit. Oil companies already had permission to drill in that area.

 

[bripat9643]

NOW you believe what scientists have to say?

Do you now agree with them on global warming?

.

Why would anyone believe a "scientist" who has been caught red handed fudging the data?

 

[bripat9643]

So then you're saying no more drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?

.

yes he is.

It's hard to believe anyone could be such a colossal moron, isn't it?

Yet, apparently there are enough of these idiots to fund a lobbying campaign to shutdown offshore drilling.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not lack of supply that's driving up prices. It's uncertainty about Middle East governments and rampant speculation.

There are groups and individuals bidding up the price of crude with no intention of receiving a delivery of crude. They just want to profit on the price.

If I were president, I would ask congress to make a legal provision that if you speculate on the price of a commodity, you must have the facilities to receive delivery of that commodity.

We can add that suggestion to the trash heap of stupid leftwing ideas.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You partisans are so entertaining, the OP is quickly becoming one of my favorites.



When gas prices were high before it wasn't Bush's fault, but when they're high now they're Obama's fault.



Gee I can't figure out why our politicians don't respect our intelligence with that kind of real world perspective.

 

[Bern80]

No that would be Obama....

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

1. The Bush administration. The oil-drilling lease was sold to BP by the George W. Bush administration in 2007 under its 2007–2012 Five-Year Offshore Oil-drilling Plan.

2. The Obama administration. The actual exploratory drilling was approved by the Obama administration on April 6, 2009.

Within days of the 2009 approval, the Center and our allies won a court order vacating the Bush Five-Year Offshore Oil-drilling Plan. Rather than use the court order as a timeout on new offshore oil drilling to develop a new plan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar filed a special motion with the court to exempt approved oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. He specifically identified BP’s operation as one that should be released from the vacature.

In July 2009, the court agreed to Salazar’s request, releasing all approved offshore oil drilling — including the BP operation — from the vacature.

3. BP. BP has the worst environmental and safety record of any oil company operating in America. Even after the 2005 Texas City Refinery blast that killed 15 people, BP has continued to rack up safety violations. Despite the dangerous nature of all offshore oil drilling and BP’s own egregious safety record, the company’s exploration plan downplayed the possibility of a spill, repeatedly asserting that it was unlikely or virtually impossible. Amazingly, Secretary Salazar’s Minerals and Management Service approved BP’s exploration plan without any consideration of the environmental consequences of an oil spill.

4. The oil industry and its political backers. The Gulf crisis shows that the glib safety claims of the oil industry cannot be trusted.

There’s no way to guarantee that a massive oil rupture will not occur. And if one does occur, there’s no way to contain it quickly and fully enough to avert unacceptable environmental damage.

Ultimately, it’s the inherently dangerous nature of offshore oil drilling that led to this disaster. That’s why the Center is calling on the Obama administration to 1) revoke its 2010 decision to open up Alaska, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast to offshore oil drilling; 2) revoke all leases to drill off Alaska, including those held by Shell Oil; 3) not permit any new offshore drilling anywhere; and 3) transition the nation away from fossil fuel so the pressure to continue offshore oil drilling dissipates.

So then you're saying no more drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?

.

Try sticking to the point Skippy

The point 'skippy' would be a very basic principle of economics. When quantity supplied increases, price decreases.

 

[Mr. H.]

Let's re-elect Clinton. After all he gave us $10 oil and $1 gasoline.

What a moronic thread.

 

[DaGoose]

Oh please! They can't even find any oil now!

It might interest you to know that oil naturally seeps into the ocean every day.



Scientists Find That Tons Of Oil Seep Into The Gulf Of Mexico Each Year

The fact is, the ocean breaks it up naturally.

NOW you believe what scientists have to say?

Do you now agree with them on global warming?

.

When you have evidence I stated I do not believe what all scientists say, do let me know.

Until then, unless you have evidence that the the posted article is wrong, yours is just a desperate deflection, and a pathetic one at that.

And yet you won't answer the question....

.

 

[editec]

It's not lack of supply that's driving up prices. It's uncertainty about Middle East governments and rampant speculation.

There are groups and individuals bidding up the price of crude with no intention of receiving a delivery of crude. They just want to profit on the price.

If I were president, I would ask congress to make a legal provision that if you speculate on the price of a commodity, you must have the facilities to receive delivery of that commodity.

I think the more appropate move might be to seriously to the shit out of speculative investments.

If you're NOT a supplier or an end consumer of the oil, the rate of taxes you pay for buying or selling futures contracts ought to be at a much higher rate than otherwise.

That would keep the futures mechanism in place (it is a good thing after all) but make PURE speculation a much riskier and costly way to invest.

Of course the flaw in this ointment is that specualtion might move offshore, right?

Instead of producers selling their contracts in Chicago, they might elect to sell them in London, right?

Frankly, I cannot see any solution to that.

The entire world and every government would have to sign onto such a plan and there's no way in hell that's gonna happen.

So I'm afraid as long as we agree that buying and selling futures is a good thing (and I think it is) we're going to have accept that specualtors will join in the fun along with the producers and consumers of those commodities.

I too believe that a healthy commodities market is a good thing. But I do not believe that profiting on speculation without the intent of actually taking delivery of that commodity is a very bad thing.

The analogy I like to cite is; I walk into a convenience store to buy a Snicker's bar. The candy is marked $.75 I pick up a Snicker's and, as I walk toward the counter someone with a price gun decides that my candy should be priced at $.80! Then, someone else marks the price at $.90. When I get to the clerk, someone else puts a $1.00 price tag on my candy. None of these folks ever intended to eat that candy bar. I pay the $1.00 and the clerk divvies up the $.25 markup between the three interlopers. I still have to pay a marked up price as the final consumer. The increase is just profit for those with access to a price gun.

How does this action serve to encourage more folks to buy Snicker's bars? Why should those folks marking up the price make as profit on something they never intended to buy in the first place?

Agreed.

How do we change behaviors?

My suggestion might do it EXCEPT that the futures business could easily migrate offshore and that would not serve our interests, either.

 

[Robert]

So then you're saying no more drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico?

.

Try sticking to the point Skippy

The point 'skippy' would be a very basic principle of economics. When quantity supplied increases, price decreases.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your Post sport which was to attempt to blame the previous administration for something that the Obama administration approved and in fact awarded for.

"2. The Obama administration. The actual exploratory drilling was approved by the Obama administration on April 6, 2009."

 

[Bern80]

Try sticking to the point Skippy

The point 'skippy' would be a very basic principle of economics. When quantity supplied increases, price decreases.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your Post sport which was to attempt to blame the previous administration for something that the Obama administration approved and in fact awarded for.

"2. The Obama administration. The actual exploratory drilling was approved by the Obama administration on April 6, 2009."

Not me 'skippy'. The above was my first post of thread. Point #2 is that it is simply a lie to state that government can't do anything about oil prices because government is preventing us from increasing the supply through the drilling we could be doing in our own country.

 

[Robert]

The point 'skippy' would be a very basic principle of economics. When quantity supplied increases, price decreases.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your Post sport which was to attempt to blame the previous administration for something that the Obama administration approved and in fact awarded for.

"2. The Obama administration. The actual exploratory drilling was approved by the Obama administration on April 6, 2009."

Not me 'skippy'. The above was my first post of thread. Point #2 is that it is simply a lie to state that government can't do anything about oil prices because government is preventing us from increasing the supply through the drilling we could be doing in our own country.

LOL opps sorry you are correct....

 

[Nosmo King]

I think the more appropate move might be to seriously to the shit out of speculative investments.

If you're NOT a supplier or an end consumer of the oil, the rate of taxes you pay for buying or selling futures contracts ought to be at a much higher rate than otherwise.

That would keep the futures mechanism in place (it is a good thing after all) but make PURE speculation a much riskier and costly way to invest.

Of course the flaw in this ointment is that specualtion might move offshore, right?

Instead of producers selling their contracts in Chicago, they might elect to sell them in London, right?

Frankly, I cannot see any solution to that.

The entire world and every government would have to sign onto such a plan and there's no way in hell that's gonna happen.

So I'm afraid as long as we agree that buying and selling futures is a good thing (and I think it is) we're going to have accept that specualtors will join in the fun along with the producers and consumers of those commodities.

I too believe that a healthy commodities market is a good thing. But I do not believe that profiting on speculation without the intent of actually taking delivery of that commodity is a very bad thing.

The analogy I like to cite is; I walk into a convenience store to buy a Snicker's bar. The candy is marked $.75 I pick up a Snicker's and, as I walk toward the counter someone with a price gun decides that my candy should be priced at $.80! Then, someone else marks the price at $.90. When I get to the clerk, someone else puts a $1.00 price tag on my candy. None of these folks ever intended to eat that candy bar. I pay the $1.00 and the clerk divvies up the $.25 markup between the three interlopers. I still have to pay a marked up price as the final consumer. The increase is just profit for those with access to a price gun.

How does this action serve to encourage more folks to buy Snicker's bars? Why should those folks marking up the price make as profit on something they never intended to buy in the first place?

Agreed.

How do we change behaviors?

My suggestion might do it EXCEPT that the futures business could easily migrate offshore and that would not serve our interests, either.

Commodities markets are regulated. Why should someone hold a chair on the market or trade on the floor if they do not intend to actually receive the goods? The markets can go on trading freely among
CONSUMERS not profiteers. It's a simple, easily enforced and reasonable solution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wasn't it also President Bush's fault that the price of gas increased?

The extinction of the dinosaurs was the fault of Bush....

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Saudi "king" Likes blowjobs. Dubya delivered.

Uh, Bush isn't gay. Obama is.

I think you may be a little confused here.....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

President Obama says there's not much the federal government can do to bring down gas prices any time soon. Michael Bromwich, Obama's chief bureaucrat in charge of issuing permits for oil and gas companies to drill off-shore, said the same thing today:

Both Obama and Bromwich either are purposely lying or they simply don't know what they are talking about. Check out the chart that accompanies this post. Notice what happened on July 14, 2008? Oil prices suddenly plummeted from their historic high of $145 a barrel. Why?

Because that was the day President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico and off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Overnight, the price per barrel of oil plunged, and that plunge was reflected at the pump soon thereafter.

In other words, Obama could with the stroke of a pen sign an executive order telling his appointees at EPA, the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy to stop throwing up obstacles to increased U.S. oil and natural gas production and instead work with the energy industry on a crash program to "drill here, drill now."

Read all here: Government can't do anything about gas prices? Then why did this happen in 2008? | Mark Tapscott | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

That means this hike in oil prices is DELIBERATE, because Obama could end it tomorrow with a stroke of his pen.

Liberals can argue otherwise, but what are they going to say? It's not deliberate, Obama is just that stupid?

"President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico."

Isn't that what led us to the worst oil spill in history of the world?

.

Yes, you are confused. You probably don't know this, but we've been drilling in the Gulf for DECADES.

BTW... the Gulf Oil Disaster was caused by a f'd up BOP.

No wonder you're in a union. You're too dumb to make it on your own.