Obama Admits He Didn't Want Low Gas Prices

How many times do you want him to give it? We're not going to keep doing YOUR homework dude. LOL
 
How many times do you want him to give it? We're not going to keep doing YOUR homework dude. LOL

Ain't my claim, is it? One would suffice, which is one more that I've seen.

So you have nothing. Guess that's why they call you "econ". You're cheap.
 
It's all bs, beyond the kernel of truth that early on in Obama's presidency they decided that X$ per gallon would support alternatives. Nothing new there. Cheney said the same. They did give out money to battery builders, and I disagreed with that. No subsidizing by the govt.
The proof is out for all to see
maybe you have links, then.

(but, btw, I was surprised to lean through googling yesterday that fracking apparently recovers crude oil as well as natl gas. I have no idea how that works. I'll look when I have time)
 
Your answers are in the early part of this thread. I spent 2000 posts pushing back on NotFooled's lies about the Iraq SOFA....I reposted facts over and over and over....it goes over you people's heads. He only shut up when Panetta and Ambassadors came out and said what I had been saying for months.

I'm not going to keep wasting my time doing your homework for you.
 
you posted this chick

Obama on gas prices - Searchya - Search Results Yahoo Search Results
It does not support your assertion. In fact, even what little support it offered was .... false. For example, the USNewsandWR "opinion" piece said some yes and some no, and the support for Obama being one cause was tied to closing the marcus hook refinery. However, the refinery is now being refurbished to process natl gas, and Obama was not the cause of it stopping refining gasoline.


Sunoco to sell or close its refineries in Philadelphia Marcus Hook
So, you have nothing but preconceived ideological assertions
 
you posted this chick

Obama on gas prices - Searchya - Search Results Yahoo Search Results
It does not support your assertion. In fact, even what little support it offered was .... false. For example, the USNewsandWR "opinion" piece said some yes and some no, and the support for Obama being one cause was tied to closing the marcus hook refinery. However, the refinery is now being refurbished to process natl gas, and Obama was not the cause of it stopping refining gasoline.


Sunoco to sell or close its refineries in Philadelphia Marcus Hook
So, you have nothing but preconceived ideological assertions

That area is nasty. But aren't they all...
 
you posted this chick

Obama on gas prices - Searchya - Search Results Yahoo Search Results
It does not support your assertion. In fact, even what little support it offered was .... false. For example, the USNewsandWR "opinion" piece said some yes and some no, and the support for Obama being one cause was tied to closing the marcus hook refinery. However, the refinery is now being refurbished to process natl gas, and Obama was not the cause of it stopping refining gasoline.


Sunoco to sell or close its refineries in Philadelphia Marcus Hook
So, you have nothing but preconceived ideological assertions

That area is nasty. But aren't they all...
Well, again the problem is that Obama has taken some regulatory steps the do increase energy costs. Is shutting down coal elec plants early really going to have any global CO2 effect, or is our action really going to influence the Chinese? I don't think so. There's an annoying elitist tone to the potus, and frankly his administration seemed almost gleeful in noting energy prices for carbon fuel have risen to make alternatives more feasible. I didn't find this fact to be cheering. (-:

But the fact is our gasoline refineries are old. And nobody's gonna build new ones because we will continue to pursue better mpg models, and alternatives will be more and more competitive. Maybe getting cheaper crude to domestic refineries would have an effect, but its probably not cost effective to upgrade rail lines just for that, nor are any pipelines going that direction.
 
I'm just wondering why supposed free market advocates would think it's the President's responsibility to keep gas prices low.
National security.

Hmm.... keeping us dependent on oil in the name of national security? Hmmmm....
hahahahahaha..that's a good one!

In case you hadn't heard the entire world is "dependent" on oil. Maintaining reliable, low cost supplies and access is good for america.
Thanks for the laugh, though!
 


Are you like, deaf? He doesn't say anything like that there.

The POTUS can't spike (or drop) gas prices anyway, even if he wanted to. Oil doesn't work that way. The price of petrol has nothing to do with the POTUS.

Didn't we just do this? Were you going "la la la can't hear you"?



Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

The claim that won rsquo t die Did Obama want higher gas prices - The Washington Post

Would he prefer a gradual adjustment DOWN????

From the same "debunking" article...
In both instances we’ve cited, Obama suggested he’s averse to letting gas prices shock families’ finances. In his White House remarks, he said point blank: “I want gas prices lower.”
Has the president taken adequate steps to make that happen?


So what actions HAS Obama taken to make lower prices???
Zero!
On the contrary he has signed fewer federal oil leases
The number of oil and gas leases granted by the federal government in the western United States declined by 44 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration versus the last two years of the Bush presidency, according to a new study prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API) by EIS Solutions.
Study Feds Approving Fewer Oil and Gas Leases Heartlander Magazine
Screen Shot 2014-10-07 at 2.12.35 PM.png

Bush Vs. Obama On Gasoline Prices In One Very Simple Picture Start Thinking Right
 
I'm just wondering why supposed free market advocates would think it's the President's responsibility to keep gas prices low.
National security.

Hmm.... keeping us dependent on oil in the name of national security? Hmmmm....
hahahahahaha..that's a good one!

In case you hadn't heard the entire world is "dependent" on oil. Maintaining reliable, low cost supplies and access is good for america.
Thanks for the laugh, though!

It's good for oil companies. But I wonder where we'd be now if American ingenuity had been faced with the same gas prices the rest of the world dealt with for the last thirty years. On to something better, is my guess. But we're not. We're mired in whining for low gas prices.
 
It's good for oil companies. But I wonder where we'd be now if American ingenuity had been faced with the same gas prices the rest of the world dealt with for the last thirty years. On to something better, is my guess. But we're not. We're mired in whining for low gas prices.

Yeah....that's all fascinating..the things you "imagine" and the things you "wonder" about...

Now, back to reality.

Oil is what the entire world runs on. There are no viable alternatives yet.

Crippling america by over regulating and purposely inhibiting exploration and production only makes us more dependent on foreign oil rather than becoming energy independent...it also costs thousands of jobs directly and many more thousands in related industries and does not help the country in any way....but obama knows all that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top