backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by Boingo Twang.. on Mar 7 at 11:06 AM


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) found that White House advisers had a great deal to do with the writing of the rules

Last week, 30 U.S. senators (29 of which were Democrats) gave President Barack Obama their support for the 54.5 mpg fuel standard by 2025. However, House Republicans still had a bone to pick with these new rules.

The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal, which was introduced by the Obama administration, the state of California and major automakers, aims to increase the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg by 2025 in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the U.S.' dependency on foreign oil.

When the new rules were initially proposed last year, major automakers like Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Chrysler backed it. However, the standard had some strong opposition from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), who said the new rules would tack an extra $5,000 to the sticker price of new vehicles in 2025, as well as Republicans who worked to block the standard last fall because they believed that it would regulate many new vehicles that sell for under $15,000 entirely out of existence.

Now, despite the rules getting the green light from 30 U.S. senators, House Republicans still have beef with the new rules. More specifically, GOP has been looking into how involved Obama's advisers were in the development of the new 2017-2025 fuel efficiency standards.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he investigated Obama's advisers' involvement last August when speaking to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler.

"Your response seemed to imply that the Executive Office of the President was not significantly involved in the development of these fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards," Issa wrote to Ruemmler.

As it turns out, Issa's investigation discovered that there was indeed substantial participation in the development of the new standards by the White House's Office of Management and Budget, Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council and Council of Economic Quality.

Ron Bloom, a White House adviser under the Obama administration, spent weeks trying to negotiate with automakers for support regarding the 54.5 mpg by 2025 standard. Bloom also spoke with lobbyists daily in July 2011, ad former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley met with Ford CEO Alan Mulally.

A finalized version of the rules is due this summer.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/1/2012 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 5
Stop spending millions of dollars with these BS regulations. Gas prices will take care of it.




RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 5:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
That's not the point though. Obama doesn't care about high gas prices, in fact he himself said under his Administration the cost of energy "should rise". And he also appointed Chu as his Energy Secretary who said the goal would be "European gas prices".

Obama can't rely on gas prices to push his agenda because he knows that as soon as a Republican administration is voted in, gas prices will start to go down. The supply will increase from drilling, pipelines will be run, which will also cause OPEC to lower crude prices from fear of competition (like they always do); and everyone will forget about EV's and other nonsense.

CAFE is a more durable and effective way to usher in more "greenness" and to force car companies into making vehicles he feels are more appropriate.


RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gas prices are affected by DEMAND, and no president of the US can prevent the demand from China, India, and other developing Southeast Asian countries from rising..


That same demand existed when Bush was in office, you know, when gas was $1.85 when he left office?

Cord, how do you ease demand? You INCREASE supply. If you think blocking 85% of our offshore drilling, blocking the Keystone project, and blocking exploration of oil doesn't effect prices you're nuts.

Pretending that we're 100% at the mercy of oil demand from China and other countries, while sitting on massive reserves ourselves, is typical leftist nonsense. Just because Obama said so, doesn't make it true.

Oil is no different than any other commodity. It's plain and simple economics. Not voodoo or mystical nonsense you guys keep cooking up to explain our energy crisis away.

You people are shameless. Obama and the Democrats BLASTED Bush on gas prices during the campaign. Now, suddenly, President's can't have any effect on them? So which is it? Now Obama and the Democrats are complaining that Republicans are "politicizing" gas prices lol. More hypocrisy!


RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 6:41:32 PM , Rating: 1
Further proof of how bat-brained that statement was. Unlike 2008, we now actually HAVE a world-wide recession. Nay, financial crisis. Yet gas has done nothing but RISE.

You can't twist every fact and situation to work for your statements. I mean, you CAN, but it's just not credible when you do it.


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:04:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You can't twist every fact and situation to work for your statements. I mean, you CAN, but it's just not credible when you do it.


Pot meet Kettle.


RE: Want to save some money?
By twhittet on 3/3/2012 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, I wanted to say that!


RE: Want to save some money?
By ekv on 3/2/2012 3:56:16 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It takes a very long time to increase the supply to a point that it'll make a significant difference, certainly not during a 4-year presidential term.
Didn't the issue of drilling ANWR come up during the Clinton years? Back then, they argued it'd take 10 long years to bring that capacity on line. Let's not start because it takes too long. Hmm, that was 20 years ago.

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." Harry S. Truman

"There is no limit to the good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit." General George C. Marshall

"It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the credit." John Wooden

Mark Twain said, “Great things can happen when you don’t care who gets the credit.”

Et al.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nolisi on 3/1/2012 8:03:54 PM , Rating: 1
Presidents can have a direct effect on gas prices- it happens when you start dropping bombs on oil rich nations and speculators start getting nervous. Other than that any measures we take to increase supply could have no effect as other producers can always adjust production to keep prices high. We saw this in the California electricity crisis- California had plenty of capacity to produce more, but energy producers started shutting off generators to create supply shortages. The same thing can happen with oil refinement.

Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, prices of crude oil have climbed steadily. It was only in the midst of the recession (when Bush left office) that prices dropped. It had little to do with his policies by that point and more to do with the fact that oil consumption, by all accounts, dropped.

I promise you the price of batteries, electronics and other commodities will go up if we start a war with China.

There's nothing voodoo about prices raising when you bomb a country heavily involved with the supply side of a commodity.

Has Obama started bombing some oil rich country that I don't know about, thusly explaining his direct effect on prices?


RE: Want to save some money?
By 91TTZ on 3/1/2012 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well he did bomb Libya...


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:08:39 PM , Rating: 3
Yes he did. That is one of the many things that makes him very Bush like.


RE: Want to save some money?
By ekv on 3/2/2012 4:05:37 AM , Rating: 3
F.U.
quote:
Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, prices of crude oil have climbed steadily. It was only in the midst of the recession (when Bush left office) that prices dropped. It had little to do with his policies by that point and more to do with the fact that oil consumption, by all accounts, dropped.
Oil price isn't going up. It's relatively steady. Look at the charts.

http://www.incrediblecharts.com/economy/gold_oil_r...

A sharp drop in crude prices in late 2008 distorted the ratio, causing an incorrect sell signal. Since then, from mid-2009 to 2011, the ratio has oscillated in a narrow range betweeen 12 and 18.

The dollar is cratering. That's what happens when somebody, by executive fiat, simply prints an extra $1T. Obama would be the executive, but you can damn well rest assured the buck don't stop there. Pansy.

I will permit you to apologize. Now.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Keeir on 3/2/2012 10:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Worldwide "Demand" for oil (millions of billions of barrels a day)

2001 - 79.5
2005 - 78.2
2007 - 76.3
2009 - 75.9

If "Demand" and "War" were the sole drivers, one might think gas should be significantly less expensive through 2009-2010 than any period in the past decade. Not really the way I remember it.


RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: Want to save some money?
By mindless1 on 3/2/2012 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 1
Give it up, you're Just. Plain. Wrong.


RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
He's mindless what do you expect.


RE: Want to save some money?
By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 6:20:26 PM , Rating: 1
Other people already DID. I would've just downrated the posts but I lost that option after posting in the topic.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nolisi on 3/1/2012 7:58:30 PM , Rating: 1
Presidents can have a direct effect on gas prices- it happens when you start dropping bombs on oil rich nations and speculators start getting nervous. Other than that any measures we take to increase supply could have no effect as other producers can always adjust production to keep prices high. We saw this in the California electricity crisis- California had plenty of capacity to produce more, but energy producers started shutting off generators to create supply shortages. The same thing can happen with oil refinement.

Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, prices of crude oil have climbed steadily. It was only in the midst of the recession (when Bush left office) that prices dropped. It had little to do with his policies by that point and more to do with the fact that oil consumption, by all accounts, dropped.

I promise you the price of batteries, electronics and other commodities will go up if we start a war with China.

There's nothing voodoo about prices raising when you bomb a country heavily involved with the supply side of a commodity.

Has Obama started bombing some oil rich country that I don't know about, thusly explaining his direct effect on prices?


RE: Want to save some money?
By RjBass on 3/1/2012 8:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmmm, I seem to remember gas prices hitting over $5/gal at one point during Bush's term. I never blamed him though as I knew better then to think the president can actually change the price of gas.


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:02:42 PM , Rating: 4
Gas prices hit their all time high the last summer Bush was in office at $4.21/gal. In November when Obama won the election gas prices dropped to $1.61/gal. Did you not think anyone would check your facts? Your $1.85/gal figure is from right after Obama was elected in November, gas was $4.21 just a few month earlier. You can try to spin your bullshit any way you want but the facts don't lie and I've included links to charts with the true numbers.

Past 3 yrs

http://bit.ly/pfpGFa

Peak gas prices during the Obama administration are about $.25 lower than the peak price during the Bush administration.

Here is the 6 yr chart, notice gas prices averaged higher while Bush was is office than while Obama has been in office.

http://bit.ly/hbVsXE

Doesn't it suck when the facts get in the way of your shitty argument?


RE: Want to save some money?
By room200 on 3/2/2012 3:24:46 AM , Rating: 1
If you've read any posts by Reclaimer77, you'll know that he cares NOTHING about facts. Once again, we could be talking about peanut butter and jelly, he'll ;ead the discussion to something negative about Obama. It's as if he has Obama derangement synfrome.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesn't it suck when the facts get in the way of your shitty argument?


It sure does. Gas exceeded $4 for only 2 months out of bush's 96 month term (June and July of 2008, respectively). It only exceeded $3.20 for 7 months out of that same time frame (7% of term). It dropped to $1.67 by December of that same year.

Obama's term has seen 1 full year of prices above $3 (33% of term) and is expected to get as high as $5. Call me crazy, but by the end of 2012, Bush's numbers will seem pretty petty. That's a fact!

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?...


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/2/2012 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if you saw the charts I posted, guess not, but average gas prices have never exceeded $4/gal during the Obama administration.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 10:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
WFT does that have to do with anything? Firstly, I never said he had; I specifically stated.. IT EVENTUALLY WILL and possibly even see $5. Secondly, I'm defining your use of the word "Skyrocketing" as a measure of "high gas prices" vs "length of President's term." If we consider $2.50 as a "reasonable" price for one gallon of gas, then Obama takes the prize for "High Gas Prices during the presidents term." Christ dude... you're trying to play a game of "$3.86 isn't $4 so Obama wins" BS. LOL!! Keep digging!!

My charts are provided by the Energy Department; I'll stick with them.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Breathless on 3/2/2012 10:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
checkmate


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Want to save some money?
By room200 on 3/2/2012 3:21:34 AM , Rating: 1
I haven't seen evidence that Obama "blamed" Bush for high gas prices; other than the fact that you claim it is so. Link to it (no neocon websites please).


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
That's because in 2007, Obama was a nobody. Nancy Pelosi and Senate Dems, on the other hand, had no problems pointing the finger. Remember.. "Wall Street" = Bush in 2007/2008.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/212137-pe...


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/12, Rating: 0
By toyotabedzrock on 3/2/2012 6:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
Demand has increased. And bush still hold the record for having the highest gas prices.


RE: Want to save some money?
By TSS on 3/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 6:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Every time a Republican gets into office and starts talking about drilling and increasing oil production, what happens? OPEC is magically able to increase their production and the cost of crude per barrel drops. OPEC is not stupid, they know how to play the game.


RE: Want to save some money?
By jjmcubed on 3/1/2012 6:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
And if we dump 100k barrels on them then they just drop their production to keep the prices high.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 6:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
100k? Seems a little low. We have the ability to generate FAR more oil than that. We don't even NEED OPEC. Thank god people in Canada, where we import the majority of our oil from (NOT the Middle East) has a clue. Too bad we don't.

"Canada will not even consider joining OPEC. Our energy production in Canada is based on the principles of a free market. We will not stray from that at all"

Canadian Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn

America has the ability to be far more energy independent than we are. Too bad oil has become more of a political chew toy than a needed commodity.


RE: Want to save some money?
By jjmcubed on 3/1/2012 7:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
It was just a number I threw out. You do know that any oil we produce goes on the Global market right? And my point was that they know how to play the game as well. OPEC has shown time and time again they will reduce output to keep demand and prices up.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 7:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Of course I do. Don't you understand? Oil, like any other global commodity on a free market, is susceptible to competitive forces. The reason OPEC can do that is because there is very little competition in the market. Countries that can't, or won't, produce their own oil are literally at their mercy.

Every move made by Obama to decrease our supply and hamper prospecting, has put us more and more at the mercy of OPEC and other exporters. This is really simple stuff here.

This convenient election year flim flam that there's nothing we can do to affect oil prices is garbage. Plain and simple. A fabrication.


RE: Want to save some money?
By jjmcubed on 3/1/2012 7:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you think that we can open our spouts all of the sudden and have an effect on the global market, sorry. We can't.

I don't usually comment on these as I get tired of your continued insulting comments.

"This is really simple stuff here"
"Don't you understand?"

You can continue to listen to your "experts" and I'll continue to listen to my "experts". Unless you work in the commodity or trading in oil, I'll continue to disagree with you no matter how much name calling you do.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2012 7:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you think that we can open our spouts all of the sudden and have an effect on the global market, sorry. We can't.


We've already proved the inverse is true. So sorry, can't agree. You're flat out wrong.

quote:
I'll continue to disagree with you no matter how much name calling you do.


I haven't called you a single name.


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:52:52 PM , Rating: 1
He did list two specific insults you said, I figured you were at least intelligent enough to realize that's what he meant by name calling. Maybe I give you too much credit.

(see others can do it too)


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/2012 1:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't consider it an "insult" if you're pointing out to somebody that they are wrong, or are not focusing on the key issue of a topic of discussion.

Now yes, I have a reputation of being rude. I have been known to call people "idiots" for simply having a different opinion. That's wrong, and I'm going to start working on that.

However I honestly didn't insult the man yesterday, or at least, did not intend to.


RE: Want to save some money?
By EnzoFX on 3/1/2012 7:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother with lost causes.


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
jimcubed do you work in commodity or oil trading? Just wondering.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 12:07:10 AM , Rating: 2
Small matters like the number of years needed to actually setup a well are conveniently forgotten by some.not to mention that *we* do not own the oil on our land. We only lease the land to oil companies who have absolutely no interest in prices going down...

Killing speculation somehow would have a faster impact and might decrease oil prices by up to 30% according to some figures.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/2012 2:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We only lease the land to oil companies who have absolutely no interest in prices going down...


Higher gas prices equal people cutting back, buying hybrids, etc etc. So the idea that we're being gouged by oil companies isn't responsible for our high fuel costs. Oil companies do not set the prices on crude oil. But they DO have an interest in profits. If a commodity like oil becomes prohibitively expensive you end up losing profit margins. Which is what's been happening to oil companies over the past few years. While the media and the left focus on profits a more in-depth look shows oil profit margins are getting slimmer. Believe me, oil companies have a BIG interest in seeing their margins go up.

Speculators are a convenient scapegoat, but they aren't part of the problem. In fact by going after speculators, all you're really doing is helping crude prices go up. Speculators actually help the price on commodities to remain more stable than they would be without. I would really love to see your source who can prove killing speculation would cause a whopping 30% drop in oil prices. That's almost impossible to believe.

A lot of people don't really understand what a speculator does. By taking big risks in good times and buying commodities, they are able to making a profit by selling their investment when prices go up. Speculating is risky and they can, and DO, lose LOTS of money. But this practice has an overall affect of stabilizing prices. Because by their very nature, they are increasing the supply of a commodity (oil) just when the market needs it most.

Without speculation we would see wild and alarming increases in oil prices.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Keeir on 3/2/2012 7:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
A few additional notes.

A quick trip to Google Finance will show you that most Oil and Gas companies make around 8% net profit margin and around 8% return on assests.

Apple and Microsoft are both in the 20%+ range for each of these categories.

Gap and American Eagle also both beat 8%.

General Mills and Kellog average around 10%.

Dish and DirectTV average around 12%.

Despite the price at the pump or the amount of profits, Oil and Gas companies are not significantly more profitable or better uses of Capital than the underlying US economy.

On speculation. Its true that Speculators can create artifically bubbles or troughs in pricing for a commodity. But bubble life is usually proportional to the lifecycle of a product. Oil and Gas contracts typically have a lifecycle less than a few years. Its unlikely that a long term bubble can be created by oil speculation. Consider the housing bubble in the US? It lasted around 5-6 years. Which incidently is right about the lifetime of a typical home purchase (large numbers of people live in a home for only 5-10 years)


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 12:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
Except hat Canada's tar sands are very costly to exploit and are only now interesting because of the current high price of oil. They have no interest in prices going down because it would simply kill them...


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 12:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
Except that Canada's tar sands are very costly to exploit and are only now interesting because of the current high price of oil. They have no interest in prices going down because it would simply kill them...


RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:30:09 PM , Rating: 1
Once again it appears the facts don't jive with your bullshit. Gas lowered after the oil embargo of the 70's when Reagan took office and STAYED low through out the Clinton administration and then skyrocketed when Bush took office.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Where you pulling those numbers from to create that BS argument?

In December of '99, Natl average was $1.35. By Oct of 2001, avg dropped to $1.27. It wasn't until March of 2007 (Post Bush 1st term) where averages exceeded $3. Then prices varied between $3 and $4 through July of 2008. That's ONE YEAR of prices above $3 (and please do remember this). =It then nose-dived to $1.67 by the end of his term.

OBAMA "inherited" $1.67 and it jumped to $2.09 just 4 months into his term. Its been above $3 since Jan 2011. THAT'S 3 YEARS of "Skyrocketing" prices by your definition, no! It's OK, that's why I'm here!

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?...


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Also as a friendly reminder, Dems took over the Senate in 2006. Coincidence to see gas prices rise after that event? I think not... not when you have whack-jobs like this running the show!

http://news.investors.com/article/602761/201202291...


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
This guy hates democrats so much that he cannot use his brain. The "easy" oil is gone. Anything left is hard and costly to extract which means that it would not lower the cost on any way.

The only real solution is to add alternate sources of energy. This is why the Chinese make oil out of coal. Not a very good solution but it works and there is plenty of coal. Algae look good too. Natural gas is not bad either. What is for sure is that there is no perfect solution and claiming that oil will be plentiful is comparable to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you". It is funny but very childish and shortsighted. The best of all this is that even if tomorrow we find a gigantic new source of oil, we will have alternate sources anyway just in case.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
This guy hates democrats so much that he cannot use his brain. The "easy" oil is gone. Anything left is hard and costly to extract which means that it would not lower the cost on any way.

The only real solution is to add alternate sources of energy. This is why the Chinese make oil out of coal. Not a very good solution but it works and there is plenty of coal. Algae look good too. Natural gas is not bad either. What is for sure is that there is no perfect solution and claiming that oil will be plentiful is comparable to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you". It is funny but very childish and shortsighted. The best of all this is that even if tomorrow we find a gigantic new source of oil, we will have alternate sources anyway just in case.


RE: Want to save some money?
By mindless1 on 3/2/2012 11:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
False. Existing tech for processing shale oil can be profitable if crude oil is above roughly $30/barrel. Take a look at this PDF, especially the chart on pg 34:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr...

However I do agree that natural gas will b e an important energy source in the future - IF politics doesn't warp the public's mind and trick them into more stupidity like subsidizing electric vehicles and trying to raise gas prices intentionally.

Oil WILL BE AND IS plentiful. There is no shortage at all nor will there be for many decades into the future if not hundreds of years. We do not need any "gigantic new source of oil", only to make people accountable for their questionable agendas so the price isn't artificially high.

The FACT is we could produce oil for less than we are paying for it. Apparently all the falsehoods you've heard are making you ignore this reality. We do not need some "new" thing at all, just to throw out all the BS nonsense we're being told and demand to keep more US dollars in the US.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
This guy hates democrats so much that he cannot use his brain. The "easy" oil is gone. Anything left is hard and costly to extract which means that it would not lower the cost on any way.

The only real solution is to add alternate sources of energy. This is why the Chinese make oil out of coal. Not a very good solution but it works and there is plenty of coal. Algae look good too. Natural gas is not bad either. What is for sure is that there is no perfect solution and claiming that oil will be plentiful is comparable to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you". It is funny but very childish and shortsighted. The best of all this is that even if tomorrow we find a gigantic new source of oil, we will have alternate sources anyway just in case.


RE: Want to save some money?
By EricMartello on 3/1/2012 9:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....what a load of BS.

Gas prices are affected by DEMAND, and no president of the US can prevent the demand from China, India, and other developing Southeast Asian countries from rising...unless there is another big financial meltdown like what happened in 2008 of course. If there's going to be a strong economy, that will mean higher demand and higher prices, and it'll balance out at some point. You're deluded if it has anything to do with who gets elected as president.


There are two things happening:

1) US refineries are exporting their oil to enjoy higher profits than they would by selling it domestically.

2) The oil cartels cut production to raise the price. This type of "market manipulation" has existed ever since they began exporting oil.

The demand for oil in the US has remained fairly constant, despite our recent and current economic woes. Democratic policies tend to make everything more expensive without adding any value to that which is costing us money - they're all about appealing to idiots, much like Apple.

What could a president do to combat high gas prices? He could impose tariffs on the US refiners to coax them into selling their oil domestically rather than exporting it, thereby addressing point #1 and lowering the price of oil for Americans. In doing so, the cartels would increase production to remain competitive and guess what...price per barrel drops globally.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
Ding! Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Obama is going around telling everyone how he has increased domestic oil production and selling it as though we directly benefit. The fact is, its all getting exported. At home, demand for domestic oil is actually down so nothing about Obama's narrative makes any sense. If demand is down, and production is up, you'd expect to see lower prices.
quote:
Democratic policies tend to make everything more expensive without adding any value to that which is costing us money - they're all about appealing to idiots, much like Apple.

LOL! +2


RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/2/2012 9:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ding! Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Obama is going around telling everyone how he has increased domestic oil production and selling it as though we directly benefit. The fact is, its all getting exported. At home, demand for domestic oil is actually down so nothing about Obama's narrative makes any sense. If demand is down, and production is up, you'd expect to see lower prices.

But I thought you republicans opposed government meddling in business and all their regulations?


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 10:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
Is that a Bill Maher talking point or John Stewart? Republicans are not opposed to regulations; They're opposed to regulations that stifle production and serves no added benefit or security. Big difference, but nice attempt anyway. If you need examples, I'll be happy to do the google'ing for you.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Politicians only oppose regulations they do not like and push for other regulations. Sometimes it has to do with reproduction or re-production.

It comes more from who pays the bill (corporations, big donors, etc...) and who votes (religious groups, etc...) than any real opinion it seems. Since you are mentioning Republicans, Mitt Romney is a good example these days it seems since nobody can essentially determine what he is really for. Ron Paul seems to be a lot more reliable on that front.


RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/2/2012 3:06:13 PM , Rating: 3
Just like all these abortion legislations that Republicans are pushing all over the country? Exactly what added benefit or security do they provide? How did Bush's ban on stem cell research benefit the country?


RE: Want to save some money?
By EricMartello on 3/4/2012 3:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just like all these abortion legislations that Republicans are pushing all over the country? Exactly what added benefit or security do they provide? How did Bush's ban on stem cell research benefit the country?


Those points of contention haven't driven up the costs of the fundamentals people need - like food and energy, and we're talking about energy here not social issues.

In fact, idiotic "green energy" initiatives based on pseudo-science and zero evidence have driven up both of those costs for all Americans. The whole corn ethanol thing drove up prices of food, requiring additional additives to gas that may or may not have any benefit increases the price of gas, providing taxpayer-backed loans and incentives to "green" companies that have yet to provide a viable product or a profit wastes money better spent on infrastructure maintenance and improvement.

How did any of Obama's policies benefit the country?


RE: Want to save some money?
By lagomorpha on 3/2/2012 10:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The supply will increase from drilling, pipelines will be run, which will also cause OPEC to lower crude prices from fear of competition (like they always do); and everyone will forget about EV's and other nonsense.


The sad thing is, there will be a several year delay between drilling and pipeline construction and reduction in gas prices because of construction times. Even if a republican was in office when construction began, a democrat would end up getting credit for it years later.

On the point of high gas prices pushing for more fuel efficiency in new cars: The people that can afford new cars are not usually the people most concerned about fuel costs, they have a bit of disposable income. CAFE is designed to encourage new cars to use less fuel without as severely impacting the people that must stick with older cars until the current batch become used cars. Is it a fair system to increase the price of new cars in order to create more fuel efficient used cars down the line? Probably not, but it's hard to tell how much the cost added to new cars compares to the reduced fuel consumption and effect on fuel prices for new car buyers.

The only other solution I can think of to increase the fuel economy of older cars without significantly increasing the price of new cars is for manufacturers to make cars with an "economy kit". When new, the car would have the full power and pep that a new car buyer wants and whenever the owner wants there could be a way to cheaply change the fuel mapping and valve lift for less power and lower fuel consumption.


RE: Want to save some money?
By FITCamaro on 3/2/2012 3:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
The argument that its takes a few years to get wells and pipelines into production is as worthless as not building them. If we'd started back when Bush was president, they'd be online or nearing completion by now.

Now you have idiots like Chuck Schumer once again saying that drilling shouldn't be done because it takes too long. And that we should push the Saudis to expand production. But I thought they wanted to reduce dependence.

Yes oil companies (like any company) will always sell to the highest bidder. But a higher supply will almost always equal a lower price.


RE: Want to save some money?
By mindless1 on 3/2/2012 11:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
but that lower price will still be felt by countries paying more than us. Can't have free trade and a global economy without our gas prices rising to mirror Europe's/etc. (minus shipping cost).


RE: Want to save some money?
By lagomorpha on 3/2/2012 10:07:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The supply will increase from drilling, pipelines will be run, which will also cause OPEC to lower crude prices from fear of competition (like they always do); and everyone will forget about EV's and other nonsense.


The sad thing is, there will be a several year delay between drilling and pipeline construction and reduction in gas prices because of construction times. Even if a republican was in office when construction began, a democrat would end up getting credit for it years later.

On the point of high gas prices pushing for more fuel efficiency in new cars: The people that can afford new cars are not usually the people most concerned about fuel costs, they have a bit of disposable income. CAFE is designed to encourage new cars to use less fuel without as severely impacting the people that must stick with older cars until the current batch become used cars. Is it a fair system to increase the price of new cars in order to create more fuel efficient used cars down the line? Probably not, but it's hard to tell how much the cost added to new cars compares to the reduced fuel consumption and effect on fuel prices for new car buyers.

The only other solution I can think of to increase the fuel economy of older cars without significantly increasing the price of new cars is for manufacturers to make cars with an "economy kit". When new, the car would have the full power and pep that a new car buyer wants and whenever the owner wants there could be a way to cheaply change the fuel mapping and valve lift for less power and lower fuel consumption.


By Philippine Mango on 3/2/2012 2:05:00 AM , Rating: 3
Not entirely true... Part of the reason is that development and performance limiting vehicles is so expensive and costly that companies are tasked with the "you go first" mentality so then nobody does it. If everybody is subjected to the same fuel economy requirement, then they all have to take steps to improve fuel economy and therefore the playing field is leveled, though there is a cost to it. The only regulations that I think should go are the requirements for various 'safety' features... Especially that very expensive requirement for backup cameras!!!


Bama is a charlatan
By Beenthere on 3/1/2012 11:40:26 PM , Rating: 1
He tells people what they want to hear and does what he wants in an effort to help his political cronies and white collar criminals - many of whom are one and the same.

Forcing all tax payers to subsidize EV's is criminal. Allowing the oil cartel to rape consumers at the pump to push gullible consumers into buying an EV - is criminal.

Mandating mpg figures that can not be reached by gas powered engines in an effort to stimulate EV sales - is criminal.

The best thing that we can hope for is that these criminals get hit by a bus crossing the street. Then the U.S. might be able to create a reasonable energy policy without all the corruption.




RE: Bama is a charlatan
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Forcing all tax payers to subsidize EV's is criminal. Allowing the oil cartel to rape consumers at the pump to push gullible consumers into buying an EV - is criminal. Mandating mpg figures that can not be reached by gas powered engines in an effort to stimulate EV sales - is criminal.


Actually forcing taxpayers to subsidize wars (where people actually die) is criminal. Letting past white collar crimes off the hook (wall street destruction of the economy) is borderline criminal. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the oil industry is rather immoral I would say but it seems that congress (not the president) keeps passing this every year. Subsidizing new technology to promote progress is good policy. It is true that some won't go anywhere. By the same token was it criminal to force taxpayers to pay for the Apollo missions?

Gas powered engine can perfectly meet the new requirements. Of course that may not be true for a for expedition or a Chevy Tahoe.

The fact that you disagree with something does not make it criminal. Also, you are confusing actions of congress and executive decisions.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 10:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually forcing taxpayers to subsidize wars (where people actually die) is criminal.

Citizens tax dollars being used to fund the military has been in place since the dawn of taxes. I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.
quote:
Letting past white collar crimes off the hook (wall street destruction of the economy) is borderline criminal.

You mean, those white collar workers that were doing what they were told do as mandated by the Democratic Controlled Senate and President (Clinton & CRA, Barney Frank and Fannie, etc...). I'm always amused at the idea that "white collar" excludes liberals, despite those very same companies you despise practically funding Obama's campaign.
quote:
Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the oil industry is rather immoral

Oil companies aren't subsidized. They're given tax breaks. Put the huffingtonpost down!
quote:
Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with “subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By lagomorpha on 3/2/2012 10:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Citizens tax dollars being used to fund the military has been in place since the dawn of taxes. I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.


The United States actually took quite a long time to implement a significant standing army for various reasons. The navy was funded in peace times through taxes because you can't really recruit ships of the line at a moment's notice, and eventually the policy did change because the equipment and training needed to fight a 20th century war is a bit different than what was needed in simpler times.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 1:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean, those white collar workers that were doing what they were told do as mandated by the Democratic Controlled Senate and President (Clinton & CRA, Barney Frank and Fannie, etc...).


Actually, these guys did not create the crisis, it is the unregulated companies. However, it is true that they did not hinder it either. Besides, the notion that a small group of people who could not afford mortgages took down the entire economy is laughable. Too small to fail?

quote:
Oil companies aren't subsidized. They're given tax breaks.

No difference since the result is the same.

For comparison sake, the mortgage deductions (or tax breaks) are a subsidy to encourage private home ownership.

quote:
Put the huffingtonpost down!

I have never read the huffington post. Interesting that you say that. I can think by myself without getting indoctrinated. It does not seem to be the case for everybody apparently because this statement itself would mean that you get your own talking points from somewhere and expect others to do the same...


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
A link to more info on energy subsidies. Energy subsidies can include tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

There I go again twisting the truth by providing the reader with information.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Put the huffingtonpost down!


Another favorite is MSNBC. I've never read Huffington Post or watched MSNBC.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Put the huffingtonpost down!


Another favorite is MSNBC. I've never read Huffington Post or watched MSNBC.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 4:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.


I'm a citizen, I have a problem with it.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By Boingo Twang on 3/7/2012 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Citizens tax dollars being used to fund the military has been in place since the dawn of taxes. I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.


Where does the constitution say we must spend trillions to have armed forces that project power all over the world? I'd be happy with one that just protected our own country's borders and ocean areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket


but Obama said
By shin0bi272 on 3/1/2012 10:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Obama said that his czars had no power and thus didnt need to be confirmed by the senate... It appears he lied... what a shocker!




RE: but Obama said
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
Every president since Roosevelt has had Czars. Only two presidents: Eisenhower and H W Bush had all of their Czars confirmed by the senate. Czars are not something new that the Obama administration came up with. Four of the current Czars were appointed by the Bush administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executiv...


RE: but Obama said
By room200 on 3/2/2012 3:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
Stop using facts damn you!


RE: but Obama said
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 11:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
Once again... taking a relevant statement and twisting it to work in your favor.

The original poster said: Obama's Czars didn't need Senate approval because they supposedly didn't come with any power. Turns out, they did come with certain powers. Hence, the LIE.

You're reply was: Czars don't need Senate confirmation; its been done before by all but 2 presidents.

What you didn't answer was: Do czars that will have certain powers require confirmation? If so, which type? What Czars DID get senate confirmation outside of Eisenhower and Bush and what was their role? Were they the same in this case?

The ENTIRE POINT that you missed was.... some Czars that have questionable backgrounds and/or come with certain powers probably better served by having Senate confirmation. Because Obama knew that would never fly, he bypassed the entire system to force a position that would have otherwise been denied.


RE: but Obama said
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 4:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was not twisting anything all I did was add information to the post. I also included a link just like my other posts so the reader could find out more if they wanted. Just wanting it to be clear that unlike what most people thing presidential czars have been around for a while, they are not some new Obama thing. I don't even like Obama,he's no different than Bush but people need the whole truth.


RE: but Obama said
By shin0bi272 on 3/3/2012 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
If they are making policy and have control over some aspect of the economy then they arent czars they are secretaries of whatever part of the economy they are in control over (i.e. sec of agriculture).

Plus wasnt it obama back in 08 that said that he didnt see a problem with 5 dollars a gallon gas but he thought we just got there a little too quickly? So he comes in and has the epa raise the cafe standards so high that all cars will have to be hybrids and thus qualify for the 7,500 tax credit and thus redistribute more wealth. But hes not a communist or anything noooo. Oh and I think it was chucky schmucky schumer that said he wants to raise the tax credit to 10k.

You cant redistribute your way to prosperity and youd think you'd know that by looking at russia but I guess the left is just going to turn a blind eye to the fact that communism has failed everywhere its been tried. You think those foxconn employees that are working for 51cents an hour and 80hour weeks are killing themselves over their wife cheating on them? No its the communist government forcing them to work as long as they physically can for no money because that's how communism works. And THAT my friend is what the left has been pushing on us for over 100 years.

Have a nice day :)


Republican is Congress opose the White House
By Boingo Twang on 3/2/2012 3:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly how is this in any way news? It's exactly the same obstructionist nonsense they have been pulling ever since the guy was elected. It's why we hear all the same whining nonsense about GM and the Chevy Volt and the financing of alternative energy and every single positive thing the guy has done. They hate him and anything he does, especially if it's good for the country and for the citizens.

Get over it guys, he's the president and will be for the next term too. Start trying to improve the country along with the president, not just standing in opposition to everything he does and trying to tear things down.




By Boingo Twang on 3/2/2012 3:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Make that "Republicans in Congress oppose the White House". Still nothing new here folks, just the same old right wing "I hate Obama" propaganda.


By shin0bi272 on 3/3/2012 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
Hey let me know when they start the movie about assassinating him. Let me know when the republicans start saying that any nominee to the supreme court barry brings is called a baby killer.

I wont hold my breath because its the democrats like good old ted kennedy that make these types of claims and republicans vote based on traditional values.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government gets to play venture capitalist? Where does it give them the power to spend our money on shit other than the military or their paychecks? Find it for me in article 1 section 8 (the powers of congress). Giving billions of dollars to foreign oil companies and green energy companies here (which as we've seen have been horribly run and out produced by chinese companies every time) is not in the constitution.

And lastly go look at when the economy started getting even the little bit better that its gotten (and even that's debatable because most people agree that the reason the unemployment is dropping is because people are falling off the U3 rolls and we arent adding enough jobs to be a net positive since we loose 375k jobs a week and add 250k jobs a month)... it didnt start happening till the republicans took over in the house and gridlocked the government. But you can go right on believing that his trillion dollar spending 3 years ago "saved us from another depression". Just keep telling yourself that pal. Wont make it true.


By Boingo Twang on 3/7/2012 11:01:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where in the constitution does it say that the government gets to play venture capitalist?


Where exactly does it say the govt. (you know, We The People) can't do these things?


By carczarconsulting.com on 3/1/2012 11:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Here's two homegrown (Beavercreek, Oregon) and disruptive gas price solutions for your consideration:

1. We seek $2.5 (US) next round funding from interested investors and/or potential production and/or distribution partners for multi-national, patent protected Vapor Fuel Technology - http://www.mpgleader.com. This solution helps US (and other consumers) and fleet managers achieve a 30.1% fuel savings and also helps automotive and commercial vehicle OEM's and their franchised dealers solve the 54.5mpg (US) CAFE requirement.

Aftermarket and after-sales consumer and fleet vehicle US retrofits (gas or CNG) alone are initially estimated at over 3-5m (N. America alone).

2. Separately, we seek $600K (US) next round funding for our new Absolute Safety Tire patented design solution - http://www.tirestud.com - as extends and retract studs to enhance winter traction, produce compressed air to maintain correct pressure within the tires and provide a visual and audible indication of tire wear beyond the recommended limit. This tire industry game-changer also features an estimated 3.3 mpg percent advantage over conventional tires.

Contact:

Andrew Gross
Managing Member of Business & Marketing
Absolute Business Solutions, LLC
Clackamas, Oregon (US)
503-891-8985
agross6325@aol.com

Raymond Bushnell
Managing Member of Technology
Absolute Business Solutions, LLC
Clackamas, Oregon (US)
503-351-2401
bushnell@teleport.com




By mindless1 on 3/5/2012 1:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
So do you spam with a straight face? Or do you realize your post only has a negative impact? What an idiot.


"Savings"
By MonkeyPaw on 3/1/2012 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
Every car I've ever owned could do about 30MPG under average use. In the 90s, my 1990 Cavalier cost $0.33/mile in fuel. 5-6 years ago, my 1997 Protege cost about $0.67/mile. Today, my 2008 Kia is about $1.17/mile. Considering the cost per fill up has doubled in about 15 years, it probably will double again by 2025. If it does, and you average 54.5mpg, that puts you at $1.10/mile. Drive that car for 100,000 miles, and you "save" $7,000. Nothing like borrowing against the future for your interest-free "payback."




How can anyone predict ...
By ZorkZork on 3/1/2012 5:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
... what the cost of this stuff will be in 2025? If history is our guide then the extra cost will be negligible in 2025.




By marine73 on 3/5/2012 7:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
Anybody who doesn't think new cars won't be >$5000 more on average in 13 years hasn't been paying attention to what the feds have been doing to the money supply for the last few years. The funny thing is, as prices rise and wages don't, new car sales will decrease and the purchase and operation of used vehicles will rise. All because this administration, and liberals in general, think that things will happen simply because they will them to be. That's kinda of how gods think of themselves, isn't it?




"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki