*Cost Of Everythings Going Up: Thanks Fucking Obama!*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that


1. Get the *fuck* back on topic.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Pogo]

Sorry bout that

1. Get the *fuck* back on topic.

Regards,ng
SirJamesofTexas

You think you ever had a topic here?? Did you read your own OP? Calling in the POTUS playing "mommy make boo boo go away" on gas prices-- something no POTUS has control over??

Bite me. Your thread is a joke.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that

1. Get the *fuck* back on topic.

Regards,ng
SirJamesofTexas

You think you ever had a topic here?? Did you read your own OP? Calling in the POTUS playing "mommy make boo boo go away" on gas prices-- something no POTUS has control over??

Bite me. Your thread is a joke.

1. Then *fucking* get out of my thread ass hole.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[AmazonTania]

Sorry bout that

1. Get the *fuck* back on topic.

Regards,ng
SirJamesofTexas

You think you ever had a topic here?? Did you read your own OP? Calling in the POTUS playing "mommy make boo boo go away" on gas prices-- something no POTUS has control over??

Bite me. Your thread is a joke.

He kinda does have control over it. It's illegal to drill for oil in many parts of America.

Then there is that inflation thing.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry bout that

1. Get the *fuck* back on topic.

Regards,ng
SirJamesofTexas

You think you ever had a topic here?? Did you read your own OP? Calling in the POTUS playing "mommy make boo boo go away" on gas prices-- something no POTUS has control over??

Bite me. Your thread is a joke.

He kinda does have control over it. It's illegal to drill for oil in many parts of America.

Then there is that inflation thing.

Well, no he doesn't. We did this before but we'll just do it again...

Some federal lands have always been controlled as far as what's available for leasing. But making Area X available in no way means it gets drilled or used. What simpletons like John Lemon here keep leaving out is the vital factor that the government doesn't drill for oil or decide when it gets drilled -- oil companies do that. And unless we nationalize the oil companies, we can't force them to drill.

For one thing, oil companies are already sitting on millions of acres leased but not exploited, for various reasons (68 million acres in 2008). For a second thing, since oil companies make that call, they're not going to take steps that infringe on their profit margin-- their loyalty is to their stockholders, not this country (or the country they're based in). They're commercial operations -- which means lowering prices is not in their interest. It actually works against it.

For a third thing, even if new areas were accessed, (a) the drilling equipment isn't available because it's already maxed, and (b) the refinery system is too, so even if you get it out it's got nowhere to go. For a fourth thing, even if they did figure ways around all that, the end product doesn't go to the pump in Dubuque -- it goes on the international market, where China and India hungrily await (again, stockholders). The same destination the end product of the Keystone pipeline would be targeted to.

And for a fifth thing, even if you get through all that and do bring a new supply into the international marketplace, it affects that world price by literally pocket change, if at all, and it takes 22 years to even get to that according to the EIA 2008 analysis of opening ANWR and the OCS.

And finally, even if you get thorugh one, two, three, four and five, there's thing six: OPEC. They see that the price of oil has dropped by a quarter, they cut back their production to compensate, yawn and go to an early lunch, and the net effect is zero.

We did this back in post 57. Notice that O'bama (or any POTUS) left the sphere of influence just before Thing One.

HTH.

 

[AmazonTania]

You think you ever had a topic here?? Did you read your own OP? Calling in the POTUS playing "mommy make boo boo go away" on gas prices-- something no POTUS has control over??

Bite me. Your thread is a joke.

He kinda does have control over it. It's illegal to drill for oil in many parts of America.

Then there is that inflation thing.

Well, no he doesn't. We did this before but we'll just do it again...

Some federal lands have always been controlled as far as what's available for leasing. But making Area X available in no way means it gets drilled or used. What simpletons like John Lemon here keep leaving out is the vital factor that the government doesn't drill for oil or decide when it gets drilled -- oil companies do that. And unless we nationalize the oil companies, we can't force them to drill.

It's already a given that the Government doesn't drill for it's oil (at least not the US Government). The idea is that there are plenty of proven oil reserves which are cost effective, which are illegal to drill.

For one thing, oil companies are already sitting on millions of acres leased but not exploited, for various reasons (68 million acres in 2008). For a second thing, since oil companies make that call, they're not going to take steps that infringe on their profit margin-- their loyalty is to their stockholders, not this country (or the country they're based in).

If the cost of drilling outpaces oil refining, then it is not cost effective to drill. Even if there are proven reserves. You expect an oil company to run at a loss for your country?

For a third thing, even if new areas were accessed and drilled, (a) the drilling equipment isn't available because it's already maxed, and (b) the refinery system is too, so even if you get it out it's got nowhere to go. For a fourth thing, even if they did figure ways around all that, the end product doesn't go to the pump in Dubuque -- it goes on the international market, where China and India hungrily await (again, stockholders). The same destination the end product of the Keystone pipeline would be targeted to.

Those are lots of 'even if's.'

And for a fifth thing, even if you get through all that and do bring a new supply into the international marketplace, it affects that world price by literally pocket change, if at all, and it takes 22 years to even get to that according to the EIA 2008 analysis of opening ANWR and the OCS.

The cost of oil is no longer dictated by supply in this current market.

 

[Pogo]

He kinda does have control over it. It's illegal to drill for oil in many parts of America.

Then there is that inflation thing.

Well, no he doesn't. We did this before but we'll just do it again...

Some federal lands have always been controlled as far as what's available for leasing. But making Area X available in no way means it gets drilled or used. What simpletons like John Lemon here keep leaving out is the vital factor that the government doesn't drill for oil or decide when it gets drilled -- oil companies do that. And unless we nationalize the oil companies, we can't force them to drill.

It's already a given that the Government doesn't drill for it's oil (at least not the US Government). The idea is that there are plenty of proven oil reserves which are cost effective, which are illegal to drill.

For one thing, oil companies are already sitting on millions of acres leased but not exploited, for various reasons (68 million acres in 2008). For a second thing, since oil companies make that call, they're not going to take steps that infringe on their profit margin-- their loyalty is to their stockholders, not this country (or the country they're based in). They're commercial operations -- which means lowering prices is not in their interest. It actually works against it.

If the cost of drilling outpaces oil refining, then it is not cost effective to drill. Even if there are proven reserves. You expect an oil company to run at a loss for your country?

For a third thing, even if new areas were accessed and drilled, (a) the drilling equipment isn't available because it's already maxed, and (b) the refinery system is too, so even if you get it out it's got nowhere to go. For a fourth thing, even if they did figure ways around all that, the end product doesn't go to the pump in Dubuque -- it goes on the international market, where China and India hungrily await (again, stockholders). The same destination the end product of the Keystone pipeline would be targeted to.

Those are lots of 'even if's.'

And for a fifth thing, even if you get through all that and do bring a new supply into the international marketplace, it affects that world price by literally pocket change, if at all, and it takes 22 years to even get to that according to the EIA 2008 analysis of opening ANWR and the OCS.

The cost of oil is no longer dictated by supply in this current market.

Yeah uh, all you did here was echo and amplify my points.

Thanks -- I think.

 

[AmazonTania]

Well, no he doesn't. We did this before but we'll just do it again...

Some federal lands have always been controlled as far as what's available for leasing. But making Area X available in no way means it gets drilled or used. What simpletons like John Lemon here keep leaving out is the vital factor that the government doesn't drill for oil or decide when it gets drilled -- oil companies do that. And unless we nationalize the oil companies, we can't force them to drill.

It's already a given that the Government doesn't drill for it's oil (at least not the US Government). The idea is that there are plenty of proven oil reserves which are cost effective, which are illegal to drill.



If the cost of drilling outpaces oil refining, then it is not cost effective to drill. Even if there are proven reserves. You expect an oil company to run at a loss for your country?



Those are lots of 'even if's.'

And for a fifth thing, even if you get through all that and do bring a new supply into the international marketplace, it affects that world price by literally pocket change, if at all, and it takes 22 years to even get to that according to the EIA 2008 analysis of opening ANWR and the OCS.

The cost of oil is no longer dictated by supply in this current market.

Yeah uh, all you did here was echo and amplify my points.

Thanks -- I think.

If that is what you want to believe, sure. The general premise is that the President (or the Government rather) does have a direct impact on the price of oil. You've ignored my first point and my last point, which states that the cost of oil is no longer dictated by the supply. If you don't know, this means that there is an externatility causing the price of oil to increase, regardless of supply. This can only be done by an interference in the marketplace, usually by a particular government policy.

 

[Pogo]

It's already a given that the Government doesn't drill for it's oil (at least not the US Government). The idea is that there are plenty of proven oil reserves which are cost effective, which are illegal to drill.



If the cost of drilling outpaces oil refining, then it is not cost effective to drill. Even if there are proven reserves. You expect an oil company to run at a loss for your country?



Those are lots of 'even if's.'



The cost of oil is no longer dictated by supply in this current market.

Yeah uh, all you did here was echo and amplify my points.

Thanks -- I think.

If that is what you want to believe, sure. The general premise is that the President (or the Government rather) does have a direct impact on the price of oil. You've ignored my first point and my last point, which states that the cost of oil is no longer dictated by the supply. If you don't know, this means that there is an externatility causing the price of oil to increase, regardless of supply. This can only be done by an interference in the marketplace, usually by a particular government policy.

As I recall, English is not your first language, is that right? Because you don't seem to understand that, again, you're just amplifying what I've already said. I cited OPEC as that 'interference' in the marketplace, but close enough. We're saying the same thing.

It was the OP living under a rock who believes that a president can just wave his magic wand and cause the price of gasoline to go down. Matter of fact that clown thinks O'bama can just "mandate" that all cars run on CNG, overnight. I've explained to him that it ain't that simple. As again above.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yeah uh, all you did here was echo and amplify my points.

Thanks -- I think.

If that is what you want to believe, sure. The general premise is that the President (or the Government rather) does have a direct impact on the price of oil. You've ignored my first point and my last point, which states that the cost of oil is no longer dictated by the supply. If you don't know, this means that there is an externatility causing the price of oil to increase, regardless of supply. This can only be done by an interference in the marketplace, usually by a particular government policy.

As I recall, English is not your first language, is that right?

That's usually the assumption you make when you engage in topics which are difficult for you.

Because you don't seem to understand that, again, you're just amplifying what I've already said. I cited OPEC as that 'interference' in the marketplace, but close enough. We're saying the same thing.

OPEC can only effect prices from their side of the spectrum. And besides OPEC there are serveral of other countries which contribute to the United State oil supply. Mexico, China, Russia and Canada (with Canada being the largest supplier to the United States). They're not the externatility. At this point, I'm not really sure what externatilities are, but I digress.

It was the OP living under a rock who believes that a president can just wave his magic wand and cause the price of gasoline to go down. Matter of fact that clown thinks O'bama can just "mandate" that all cars run on CNG, overnight. I've explained to him that it ain't that simple. As again above.

It's not that simply, especially if you create plenty of anecdotal 'even if's,' but it's really not difficult to eliminate the causes of why gas prices are so high. That is if you understand supply and demand. Gas is a commodity, which makes it's price volatile. There hasn't been any crisis's involving OPEC countries, labour strikes, or major influences with the weather.

America has become a net-exporter of oil, with DOE inventories increasing and oil consumption decreasing. The problem is clearly not supply, OPEC, or any other externalities. Given what I have already eliminated, you should be able to figure out what the cause is. Or maybe not. I dunno...

 

[Pogo]

If that is what you want to believe, sure. The general premise is that the President (or the Government rather) does have a direct impact on the price of oil. You've ignored my first point and my last point, which states that the cost of oil is no longer dictated by the supply. If you don't know, this means that there is an externatility causing the price of oil to increase, regardless of supply. This can only be done by an interference in the marketplace, usually by a particular government policy.

As I recall, English is not your first language, is that right?

That's usually the assumption you make when you engage in topics which are difficult for you.

Because you don't seem to understand that, again, you're just amplifying what I've already said. I cited OPEC as that 'interference' in the marketplace, but close enough. We're saying the same thing.

OPEC can only effect prices from their side of the spectrum. And besides OPEC there are serveral of other countries which contribute to the United State oil supply. Mexico, China, Russia and Canada (with Canada being the largest supplier to the United States). They're not the externatility. At this point, I'm not really sure what externatilities are, but I digress.

It was the OP living under a rock who believes that a president can just wave his magic wand and cause the price of gasoline to go down. Matter of fact that clown thinks O'bama can just "mandate" that all cars run on CNG, overnight. I've explained to him that it ain't that simple. As again above.

It's not that simply, especially if you create plenty of anecdotal 'even if's,' but it's really not difficult to eliminate the causes of why gas prices are so high. That is if you understand supply and demand. Gas is a commodity, which makes it's price volatile. There hasn't been any crisis's involving OPEC countries, labour strikes, or major influences with the weather.

America has become a net-exporter of oil, with DOE inventories increasing and oil consumption decreasing. The problem is clearly not supply, OPEC, or any other externalities. Given what I have already eliminated, you should be able to figure out what the cause is.

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...
Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

 

[AmazonTania]

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'

Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

for third time:
dear, can you say why the Constitution gives us guns or must you admit you lack the IQ to do so??

For the fourth time:

Can you not fucking read?

for forth time:
dear, can you say why the Constitution gives us guns or must you admit you lack the IQ to do so??

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

 

[Politico]

It's not his fault. He said so yesterday.

 

[Rshermr]

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'

Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.
Now, the cons are blaming Obama. Funny how that works. Never provide any credit when the prices decrease. Just blame him for increases. Which proves that you are STUPID.
During this administration, OIL SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. During this administration, OIL DEMAND HAS DECREASED. Now, assuming you are not brain dead, you know that means that in your "market economy" in your simple little mind, that would indicate what? Why, it would mean that gas prices are decreasing. But they are not, are they???
Now, try to think. Actually stop the attempt to place blame on the presidency, who ever is there. Why are prices not reacting to supply and demand???
1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.
2. THE OIL COMPANIES own the distribution channels. They are able to CONTROL PRICE directly.

So, get a clue. The problem is not this president. It is not the last president. It is NOT ANY PRESIDENT. It is, OBVIOUSLY, the oil companies. Because they are OLIGOPOLIES, and they have near complete control of gas prices.

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

 

[Rshermr]

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'

Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

By the way, you seem to make a really big deal of having a Series 3 license. Having said license simply proves you passed a single exam, by getting 70% of the 120 questions on the Series 3 test, correct. Jesus.

 

[Rshermr]

For the fourth time:

Can you not fucking read?

for forth time:
dear, can you say why the Constitution gives us guns or must you admit you lack the IQ to do so??

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

You are responding to ED. ED!!!! Between the two of you, you may have a combined IQ of what??? Maybe 100???? Dipshit.

 

[Pogo]

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'

Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.
Now, the cons are blaming Obama. Funny how that works. Never provide any credit when the prices decrease. Just blame him for increases. Which proves that you are STUPID.
During this administration, OIL SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. During this administration, OIL DEMAND HAS DECREASED. Now, assuming you are not brain dead, you know that means that in your "market economy" in your simple little mind, that would indicate what? Why, it would mean that gas prices are decreasing. But they are not, are they???
Now, try to think. Actually stop the attempt to place blame on the presidency, who ever is there. Why are prices not reacting to supply and demand???
1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.
2. THE OIL COMPANIES own the distribution channels. They are able to CONTROL PRICE directly.

So, get a clue. The problem is not this president. It is not the last president. It is NOT ANY PRESIDENT. It is, OBVIOUSLY, the oil companies. Because they are OLIGOPOLIES, and they have near complete control of gas prices.

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

uuhhh.... attributing somebody's hackneyed demagoguery to "dems" and therefore "everybody over there", and therefore "you" (whoever 'you' means) -- even though it came from one person -- is what's "stupid".

The rest of the analysis is sound, but just so we're clear, Sparky, if you're taking an inane quip from Nancy Pelosi 2008 and attributing it to 50% of the population, you may not even be qualified to post.

I wouldn't waste time trying to make sense out of AT's posts up there. I gave up. Basically I said "the sky is blue" and she insists, "no it isn't, the sky is blue!". Doesn't make sense.

And by the way, lest we forget, Mitt Romney pulled the same crap out of his ass in the last election. It's what politicians do. They're playing to the ignorant, not to us. And if you'll notice, that's "Mitt Romney" -- not "Republicans", not "everybody over there"; Mitt Romney, period.

Aside from that, we all agree, a POTUS doesn't control gas prices. That's the OP's idea, nobody else's. And I'm sure by now he's more lost than he was when he started this idiot thread.

 

[Pogo]

For the fourth time:

Can you not fucking read?

for forth time:
dear, can you say why the Constitution gives us guns or must you admit you lack the IQ to do so??

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

Keep it then. You only look stupider by the day and your credibility, if any ever existed, is shot. As long as you do, anything you post is worthless.

Good to know who doesn't care whether something is factual or not and just makes it up as he goes along.

 

[Rshermr]

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'



How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.
Now, the cons are blaming Obama. Funny how that works. Never provide any credit when the prices decrease. Just blame him for increases. Which proves that you are STUPID.
During this administration, OIL SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. During this administration, OIL DEMAND HAS DECREASED. Now, assuming you are not brain dead, you know that means that in your "market economy" in your simple little mind, that would indicate what? Why, it would mean that gas prices are decreasing. But they are not, are they???
Now, try to think. Actually stop the attempt to place blame on the presidency, who ever is there. Why are prices not reacting to supply and demand???
1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.
2. THE OIL COMPANIES own the distribution channels. They are able to CONTROL PRICE directly.

So, get a clue. The problem is not this president. It is not the last president. It is NOT ANY PRESIDENT. It is, OBVIOUSLY, the oil companies. Because they are OLIGOPOLIES, and they have near complete control of gas prices.

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

uuhhh.... attributing somebody's hackneyed demagoguery to "dems" and therefore "everybody over there", and therefore "you" (whoever 'you' means) -- even though it came from one person -- is what's "stupid".

The rest of the analysis is sound, but just so we're clear, Sparky, if you're taking an inane quip from Nancy Pelosi 2008 and attributing it to 50% of the population, you may not even be qualified to post.

I wouldn't waste time trying to make sense out of AT's posts up there. I gave up. Basically I said "the sky is blue" and she insists, "no it isn't, the sky is blue!". Doesn't make sense.

And by the way, lest we forget, Mitt Romney pulled the same crap out of his ass in the last election. It's what politicians do. They're playing to the ignorant, not to us. And if you'll notice, that's "Mitt Romney" -- not "Republicans", not "everybody over there"; Mitt Romney, period.

Aside from that, we all agree, a POTUS doesn't control gas prices. That's the OP's idea, nobody else's. And I'm sure by now he's more lost than he was when he started this idiot thread.

So, Pogo says:

uuhhh.... attributing somebody's hackneyed demagoguery to "dems" and therefore "everybody over there" -- even though it came from one person -- is what's "stupid".

I said no such thing. I simply made the statement that when Dems blamed W, the con outlets all said that it was not possible for a president to create gas price increases. While now, we have cons saying that the price of gas is Obama's fault. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

The rest of the analysis is sound, but just so we're clear, Sparky. If you're taking an inane quip from Nancy Pelosi 2008 and attributing it to 50% of the population, you may not even be qualified to post, I don't care what kind of license you have.

Name is not Sparky. And I again said no such thing. It was not said by 50% of the population Which is WHY I DID NOT SAY IT WAS. It was, however, said by a fair number of uninformed dems who passed the blame to the then current president. And what resulted was nearly every con media outlet defending the then pres by saying it was not possible for a pres to create the rise in gasoline prices.
Now, if you care to look, you will find all kinds of con sources saying it is Obama's fault that gas prices have risen. Simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
By the way, what liscense do you think that I said I have???? I did not refer to any credentials that I have. I simply pointed out to AT that having a Series 3 license is not a big deal. She has used that card before. Gets old.

I wouldn't waste time trying to make sense out of AT's posts up there. I gave up.

And by the way, lest we forget, Mitt Romney pulled the same crap out of his ass in the last election. It's what politicians do. They're playing to the ignorant, not to us.

Look at the article that I posted. It completely covers these points. So, did you think that we disagree. Interestingly, as the article I referenced points out, though Romney blamed Obama, his economic adviser is on record as saying no president can affect gasoline prices.

Aside from that, we all agree, a POTUS doesn't control gas prices. That's the OP's idea, nobody else's.

If you look at AT's post (who is the person to whom I was responding) you will note that not everyone agrees that the POTUS does not affect gas prices. The rational agree that he does not, the politically motivated often do not.