The Goat Pen

Hacksaw wrote:Suddenly it's okay to be a tough guy President.

And, evidently, they also seem to have suddenly come to the conclusion that there might just be other possible explanations for why gasoline would cost $4 a gallon -- other than the POTUS being in bed with Big Oil. Imagine that.

Wow. You really are out there. Nobody accepted GWB as a "Tough Guy" President because he was dumber than a box of rocks. Being from Texas doesn't make you tough. Look at aTm.

My beef in '08 was with XOM and the other members of the national cartel. The obscene profits...fruition after years of mergers and competition-busting.

As for dubya - I think he scuttled an oil company back in the 80's didn't he? I doubt that created a ripple wrt our current oil hikes.

Environmentalists and environmental policy hold too much sway in DC, yes, even W kowtowed to them w/ethanol edict. If Obammer, or any politician for that matter, really cared about "the poor" and jobs, they'd demand to increase (domestic)supply, thus lowering the price....and the profit.

Dora wrote:The explanation for the oil prices.

Lots of factors: global political unrest, government regulations, limited refinery capacity, international market demand...

I don't claim to be an expert, but I know it's a lot more complicated than "the President's in bed with Big Oil."

Jungle Rat wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:Suddenly it's okay to be a tough guy President.

And, evidently, they also seem to have suddenly come to the conclusion that there might just be other possible explanations for why gasoline would cost $4 a gallon -- other than the POTUS being in bed with Big Oil. Imagine that.

Wow. You really are out there. Nobody accepted GWB as a "Tough Guy" President because he was dumber than a box of rocks. Being from Texas doesn't make you tough. Look at aTm.

Dubya was criticized for trying to be a tough guy. Whether you or I agree that he was is irrelevant. You don't generally see the same criticism of Obama (who, speaking of dumb, once claimed to have visited 58 of the 60 United States).

Hacksaw wrote: Lots of factors: global political unrest, government regulations, limited refinery capacity, international market demand...

I don't claim to be an expert, but I know it's a lot more complicated than "the President's in bed with Big Oil."

So you don't think Obama's got anything to do with it?

The President is in bed with Big Oil

The two young guys are Big Oil. The guy who gets coffee thrown on him is the American consumer. The manager who gets told to "get back in your f__ing office" is the President - either W or Obama. It doesn't matter which one.

bluetick wrote:My beef in '08 was with XOM and the other members of the national cartel. The obscene profits...fruition after years of mergers and competition-busting.

As for dubya - I think he scuttled an oil company back in the 80's didn't he? I doubt that created a ripple wrt our current oil hikes.

The obscene profits haven't changed. There may or may not be other things, but that part hasn't changed.

Dora wrote:

Hacksaw wrote: Lots of factors: global political unrest, government regulations, limited refinery capacity, international market demand...

I don't claim to be an expert, but I know it's a lot more complicated than "the President's in bed with Big Oil."

So you don't think Obama's got anything to do with it?

Oh, I wouldn't say that. There are a lot of things he could do that would make the situation better. That's not the same as saying that I believe in some sort of conspiracy where he is purposely manipulating the price of gas in order to help his friends.

But then again, no one that I'm aware of is suggesting that about Obama.

>There are a lot of things he could do that would make the situation better.

Like what?

how much is E-85 in your areas?

E-85 sucks ass. Yes, it's cheaper, but when I run it in my car, the drop in mileage eliminates any real savings. Plus, it's fucking up commodity prices.

Dora wrote:>There are a lot of things he could do that would make the situation better.

Like what?

Drill more domestically and remove some of the governmental regulations that have kept us from increasing refinery capacity, for starters. I gave him kudos for showing some initative on drilling more in the Gulf of Mexico. But then the big spill happened and he pussed-out.

According to the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 67750.html: "Oil-drilling activity in the U.S. has accelerated to a pace not seen in a generation as energy companies, oilfield contractors and landowners rush to exploit newly profitable sources of crude. The number of rigs aiming for oil in the U.S. is the highest since at least 1987, according to Baker Hughes Inc. The 818 rigs tallied by the oilfield-service company last week are nearly double last year's count and about 10 times the number that were drilling for oil in the late 1990s."

Hacksaw...don't forget the libs who proclaimed when Clinto was elected...

"Those are OUR planes now!"

Dora wrote:According to the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 67750.html: "Oil-drilling activity in the U.S. has accelerated to a pace not seen in a generation as energy companies, oilfield contractors and landowners rush to exploit newly profitable sources of crude. The number of rigs aiming for oil in the U.S. is the highest since at least 1987, according to Baker Hughes Inc. The 818 rigs tallied by the oilfield-service company last week are nearly double last year's count and about 10 times the number that were drilling for oil in the late 1990s."

Sounds great. But it's clearly not enough. And that article really seems to reinforce my original point (which we've strayed from a bit) that Obama has been treated quite differently than Bush was on the issue of gas prices and, by extension, oil policy.

"Sounds great. But it's clearly not enough."

With you, it never is.

>Sounds great. But it's clearly not enough.

Actually, what it shows is that more drilling at home ≠ lower gas prices. Just because 'our' oil companies can save by drilling locally rather than shipping across the ocean, does not mean they will pass the savings on to consumers.