Are You Upset About High Gas Prices?

Amount of control any president has on the long term average price of gas: Extremely little

Amount of control any driver has on how much gas they use over the long term: Immense

Now it's time to sit back and watch what folks connect the dots.

 

The American people are being raped at the gas pump. Remember when OPEC used to control prices by turning the spigot off and on? Not anymore. The speculators buying and selling oil paper are what is controlling the price of oil.

Obama gets bin Laden, oil prices decline. Obama had the guts to get bin Laden, but he has not shown the guts to control the oil speculators.

 

In 2006 Bush got blamed for high gas prices because he didn't put enough emphasis on alternative fuels and too much on drilling reserves. I think the facts have proven that emphasis on alternative fuels didn't have any effect except to raise prices on food. Am I wrong?

Now here we are 5 years down the line. The price of gas was $1.89 per gallon when Obama took office, so much for the idea that drilling our reserves doesn't lower gas prices. Once in office Obama started pushing alternate energy and restricting drilling which is causing higher energy and gas prices and his non-energy policy has had little or no effect, once again, on the price of gas which has now soared to over $4.00 per gallon. Maybe he should go out an whack another high profile terrorist hopefully that'll lower gas prices. It's plain as day that stumbling by from year to year with no energy policy isn't helping.

 

It takes the House and the Senate and the President to spend money. None of them can escape blame. Big chunks of the current deficit are the result of past choices.

Here are snippets from another viewpoint: How U.S. squandered its finances in 10 years

"By Lori Montgomery The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — The nation's unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.

In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses for the foreseeable future. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that there would be enough money by the end of the decade to pay off the nation's debt.
...
Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Politicians chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds.
...
Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year.
...
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and tax bills enacted under former President George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That's nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now are at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. [emphasis added]
...
All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.
...
The annual surpluses that set the nation on this course emerged in the final years of the Clinton administration.
...
In the end, Bush cut taxes and spent more money. Good times masked the impact, as surging tax revenues reduced the size of year-to-year deficits during the first three years of his second term. But after the economy collapsed during Bush's final year in office, deficits — and therefore the debt — began to explode as Obama sought to revive economic activity with more tax cuts and federal spending."

 

I'm not a supporter of releasing oil reserves into our daily inventory for the sake of reducing price. I firmly believe that our oil reserves ought to support military requirements if needed, or for a truly global crisis in oil production, but not for the short-term purpose of manipulating daily consumer prices which I feel is purely political.

I think a longer-term solution for our government is to try and bust up the oil conglomerates in the form of price/profit limits. Posting $11B in one quarter is egregious, flagrant and racketeering in a way that's worse than credit card interest rates because it impacts consumers across a much broader market segment. For me the proof of price gauging is in the difference between diesel and gasoline. Isn't diesel cheaper to produce? Many years ago, diesel was cheaper than gasoline.

If supply/demand determines market price and conditions, than why are oil prices rising? Just in vehicles alone, our demand should be decreasing. It's been 5-7 years of hybrid technology, fuel-efficient engines and curtailed driving. Demand should be decling, but oil prices are rising. Granted, U.S. demand does not necessarily mirror global conditions which may very well represent incresed demand markets, but U.S. oil production is more than enough to satisfy home demand without being influenced by global conditions.

So, in summary, no I am not laughing about gas/oil prices. I pray that we get off the oil sucking teets of global oil producers especially those in the middle east and Arabian countries. Afterall, isn't that the secret rationale why the U.S. is committed to peace over there? Access to their oil rich fields. We certainly can't win an ideological war against them!

 

amount of control Congress and the President COULD have over the long term price of gas/gas tax/green energy development/nattional debt

a TON... what they choose to do??

what the oil companies tell them

 

Obama hasn't done much because he has been busy trying to undo all the economic damage done by all those Bush-led "conservatives" in the early 2000s: destroying the budget surplus, cutting taxes, fighting wars and deregulating government. Conservative is not the word.

Besides, anything he has tried has been blocked by the oil lobby and their Right Wing buddies--including many Republicans. The libertarian Koch brothers, oil billionaires, have spent $100 million in the media tearing down Obama with a lot of lies and misinformation. Keeping the media rich and Americans deceived.

 

Believe me, I am not a supporter of big oil. However, I presume, without knowing, that the term "big oil" is not completely refelective of all oil companies' profile. I think there are many, many small oil companies.

My next door neighbor is a Geologist ... he work for an oil company looking for new discoveries. Earlier this year he was constantly away from home. Then he told me the exploratory well failed to find oil. My point, oil companies (big and small) take enormous financial risk. When they hit oil, their profits soar, when they do not, they loose.

I am not exactly sure who "speculators" are? But are we not all speculators in one form or another. You are if you have stocks and bonds. You are if you top off your tank believeing gasoline will be higher tomorrow, or wait, thinking the price will drop in the morning. Many people are buying gold (at least that is what the advertisements say). They are speculating about the value of the tomorrows dollar. I see women in the market with grocery carts loaded with bulk food items .... they are speculating it will be more costly next trip.

Isn't this a lot about how capitalism works? Do bidders not bid projects at the highest cost they think they can .... and still win the contract? I have a good friend that owns a steel fabrication business. He is bidding projects at or below cost to "ride this economic downturn through," and to keep his good, trusted employees working. Commendable I think. But there is a limit how long that practice can continue.

What I am opposed to is the government manipulation of the market .... the imposition of rules and regulations. This administration cannot get laws passed, so they are overloading all commerce with rules and "red-tape." The "commerce clause" is being used by the government to enforce universal healthcare for everyone. They can use that same commerce clause to regulate every aspect of our lives, everything we consume, every mile we drive .... well, you get the idea.

 

What a load of bullshit.

Oil prices crashed with the economy because global demand dropped. The price was only sustained at the level it was because people were using all the available storage space they could get to fill up.

As global demand increased again prices went up. While the recent price spike has everything to do with the loss of Libyan sweet crude supplies to Europe, even before then the gas price was in the $3.50 range.

My guess is oil prices dropped with Bin Laden on the hope of a positive effect on geopolitics and therefore better chance of a resolution in Libya and less threat to supply in the middle east.

Other than the moratorium after the gulf spill, the Obama administration and congress has actually increased access to US reserves, but smartly, in the same process they have reduced subsidies and state incentives so the drilling has to stand more on its own merits.

Drilling additional US reserves would (eventually) temporarily add slightly to the global supply but given the limited reserves the USA has it would be a tiny dent compared to the rising global demand and gas prices would still continue their inevitable upward climb.

Dumbass Republicans were too busy waving tire gauges during the presidential election to even listen to the point made: the same effect additional US drilling would have on supply could be achieved through lowered US demand just by people maintaining marked tire pressure (let alone max sidewall). In other words, DBD wouldn't have the desired effect.

As for alternative fuels, that's a crappy straw man. I'm sure the administration would love to remove the massive and damaging biofuel production subsidies that the US government is doling out, but there is no way they can do it. What people actually advocate (including Obama in his campaign) is investing in research into potential solutions such as cellulosic ethanol, algal fuels and shifting to EV. (The smart grid is stalled due to interstate fighting over paying for it, not because the administration secretly doesn't really want it.)

 

Incorrect, You don't understand our system of government. But I do stand corrected, the President also has the veto power over any bill that comes from Congress and thus some additional control over a budget bill. However, a Presidential veto can be overturn by a 2/3 majority vote. Additionally, if the President fails to sign a bill within ten days it becomes law without his signature. In either case the budget bill becomes law thus making the President almost irrelevant in the budget process in those instances. For all intents and purposes Congress can spend however they fancy. The objecting President and the individual members of congress that vote against a bill will escape blame as their votes are cast and recorded voicing their objections against. But only if your name is not Bush. Who did spend too much but only by the largest display of ludicrous hypocrisy could you blame it entirely on him.

ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!


ONCE AGAIN I SAY ONCE AGAIN!​

CLINTON (PRESIDENTS) HAD/HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET/SPENDING PROCESS AND/OR THAT MYTHICAL SURPLUS!!! GO BACK AN REVIEW CLINTON'S PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE ONE ACTUALLY PASSED BY CONGRESS!!! IT SURE AS HELL WASN'T CLINTON'S PROPOSED BUDGET! HE HAD LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! CONGRESS EVISCERATED THE CLINTON PROPOSED BUDGET!!! THE SURPLUS IS A MYTH!! HOWEVER, OTHER GOOD DEBT/DEFICIT THINGS DID TAKE PLACE DURING THAT TIME, LIKE THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.

:frusty:​

From the US Treasury online data base . . .

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	Fiscal year	Year Ending	National Debt	Deficit
1	FY1993	09/30/1993	$4.411488 trillion
2	FY1994	09/30/1994	$4.692749 trillion	$281.26 billion
3	FY1995	09/29/1995	$4.973982 trillion	$281.23 billion
4	FY1996	09/30/1996	$5.224810 trillion	$250.83 billion
5	FY1997	09/30/1997	$5.413146 trillion	$188.34 billion
6	FY1998	09/30/1998	$5.526193 trillion	$113.05 billion
7	FY1999	09/30/1999	$5.656270 trillion	$130.08 billion
8	FY2000	09/29/2000	$5.674178 trillion	$17.91 billion
9	FY2001	09/28/2001	$5.807463 trillion	$133.29 billion

If the Bush unfunded wars and the Bush unfunded tax cuts were what caused the huge debt/deficit today how on earth was the deficit reduced from a high of $400+ billion in 2004 to a low of $162 billion in 2007?


Finally, take a look at this graph and please explain to me how raising taxes or lowering taxes has much to do with tax revenue? I posted this in FHoPol and did not get one person in favor of increasing taxes to post one comment or rebuttal, not one!

If this graph fairly and accurately depicts tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (It makes more sense to compare tax revenue to GDP than to the economy as a whole) then how is raising taxes going to reduce the deficit?

At it's most extreme, revenue from taxes, only varies 3.1% from GDP over the entire time period this data covers. The change after Kennedy first reduced taxes from around 91% to 70% reflects about a 1.7% increase in tax revenue and the 42% change during the Reagan years reflects a -1.2 to -1.5% decrease. The entire span from it's high of 91% down to present day 35% tax rate there is only a 1.5% change! Obviously some other factor determines the amount of revenue brought in other than a simple increase in taxes. What say you? :noidea:



This chart is based on data available from the Office of Management and Budget OMB and the Congressional Budget Office CBO.

 

There are politics and there are physics. Gas coming out of the ground is only going to get dirtier (e.g. Oil Sands) and more expensive. Approaching this as a political issue to be solved by the government is only going to result in great pain and anger. Quite a few feel that punishing someone would solve the price problem. Whether it is the President, Congress, Oil Companies, Speculators, Auto Companies, etc. etc. etc., many think that "changing" them would solve the price problem. It certainly will affect the veneer of the daily spot price, not the overall situation. Ten years from now, gas will be vastly more expensive....period.

Approaching this as an individual reality independent of politics (which is exactly what you are doing!!!) is the only viable course of action that one can count on. Thanks for doing something real.

 

Especially since gas prices reached similar levels in 2008: and talking points weren't critizing the president about how much domestic drilling was occuring. Our current talking points don't focus on the bigger picture: how much oil reserves the US has is fairly insignificant to world reserves (and certainly not sustainable to our demand). The US has very large reserves of coal and large reserves of natural gas (we are not significant with oil reserves). It seems the only way there will be debates about alternative fuels is when oil prices are unacceptable for the average US citizen (and considering we've been enjoying lower gas prices then other countries...I suspect it will still take awhile).

 

Put down the Kool-aid and supply facts to back your accusations as I did in my last post. It lends credibility. The only way someone outside the government can block or influence anything the gov does is usually with money. You saying that Big Oil is buying off Obama. I doubt it!

 

Please supply facts and evidence to back your statements. I'll look at them and get right back at you!

 

That would be the financial crisis and the bailout, etc. Before Obama was sworn in, the CBO estimated a $1.2 trillion deficit. Obama also signed the stimulus and took some steps to aid the economy, which increased that number.

No, bailout mania ensued in October 2008. FY2009 began in October 2008.

Yes, but the key detail you omit is that the recession officially started in late '07, and the subprime mortgage meltdown happened in late '06. The economic issues and the efforts to deal with them have severely reduced revenues to the government and increased its expenditures, increasing deficits.

The FY2007 data point is an interesting one, but it is essentially at the peak of the housing bubble, before the house of cards fell. For that reason, it is not a good data point. The impending economic crisis wiped out revenues used to reduce the deficit.

It was 8% overall. Some parts got more, some got less. The 31% is irrelevant for this discussion.

I didn't have a good citation for that. But, as you noted, discretionary spending is/was on the order of $1.x trillion, and my link showed you that Obama signed off on $410 billion. That leaves hundreds of billions of discretionary spending left, which Bush signed off on.

 

:frusty: I give up obviously you will pay no attention to my arguments, points or facts. The ones your making don't seem to address the points I have raised, therefore, this discussion is pointless and most probably in the wrong forum and certainly now off subject. :focus: Take a look at my post above which references a thread in FHoPol, wherein I bring up Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP and if you want we can continue our discussion there. But I'm pretty much done here. Thank you and if I was snarky, blunt or out of line I apologize.

I will reiterate one last time Presidents do not set budgets or determine how much we spend, Congress does. End of discussion, if you don't believe me please reference the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

The rest of your paragraph has enough errors to show that You don't understand our system of government.

Article I Section 7 holds that certain financial bills must originate in the House. But these bills must be approved by the House and the Senate and the President, so they all gain responsibility through their veto power.

The House and Senate are rarely so lopsided that a 2/3rds vote to override a presidential budget veto is even possible. And your statement about a budget bill becoming law without the President's signature applies only in cases of administrative incompetence or deliberate political manuever, so ...

... just illustrates your lack of understanding.

Neither I nor the quoted article blamed it entirely on him.

 

What really gets me upset is that oil companies get subsidies, while raking in record profits. Also, they STILL keep raising the price of fuel, even though demand is down. This goes against standard economic theory. When demand goes down, price should go down.

 

+1...The big Oils will try to convince us these profits are going for research, new drilling sites and other R&D issues. Hogwash!

 

-Brad