The Goat Pen

good lord.

Obama has been treated quite differently than Bush on the issue of gas prices

It's probably a perception thing. Obama, being a brother, has no one to relate to at Big Oil. Because there are no brothers in charge there.

Bush otoh is a white guy (and a Texan to boot), same as all those pasty white oil execs. So people naturally assumed that those ofays would get together, have drinks, play grab-ass, and work a few deals. And then they'd all go hunting with Dick Cheney over the weekend.

Anyway, that's probably the way the 9:1 media sees it. While they run those Exxon Mobil ads with all their smooth talk about green energy ideas and saving the environment. For the kids, of course.

</srcsm>

STFU

Another difference is that Obama can point to the unrest in the entire Middle East, and the off-line oil production in Libya in particular, as reasons for the skyrocketing price of gas. Also, unlike Bush and Cheney, his friends and fellow board members re not being enriched by the situation.

But I didn't believe the nonsensical excuses for $4+ gas under Bush, and I don't believe the nonsensical excuses for $4+ gas under Obama. Gas is $4+ because the oil companies can make it so, and make mind-boggling profits in the process. It's really no more complicated than that.

Yer an idiot.

Dora wrote:>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.

It suggests that more domestic drilling, alone, doesn't necessarily equate to lower prices -- at least not right away. Of course, there are still the matters of regulation and limited refinery capacity, not to mention the global influences. It's also likely that the effects of increased drilling could take a while to be seen at the pump. Bush tried to drill in ANWAR and Obama was against it at the time. In fact, he said that more drilling would lead to lower prices, but it would take 5 years to see the effects at the pump.

bluetick wrote:Obama has been treated quite differently than Bush on the issue of gas prices

It's probably a perception thing. Obama, being a brother, has no one to relate to at Big Oil. Because there are no brothers in charge there.

Bush otoh is a white guy (and a Texan to boot), same as all those pasty white oil execs. So people naturally assumed that those ofays would get together, have drinks, play grab-ass, and work a few deals. And then they'd all go hunting with Dick Cheney over the weekend.

Anyway, that's probably the way the 9:1 media sees it. While they run those Exxon Mobil ads with all their smooth talk about green energy ideas and saving the environment. For the kids, of course.

</srcsm>

I would seriously just like to see some honest reporting on it. With Bush, they painted a cartoon picture with Bush and Cheney syphoning off gas profits to their buddies with cowboy hats and fat cigars. With Obama, they're pretty much ignoring the subject altogether. If the oil companies are really just shaking everybody down, regardless of who is in the White House, then where the hell is 60 Minutes? Where is Geraldo Rivera? Why isn't anyone exposing them?

does not mean they will pass the savings on to consumers.

bingo!

>It suggests that more domestic drilling, alone, doesn't necessarily equate to lower prices -- at least not right away. Of course, there are still the matters of regulation and limited refinery capacity, not to mention the global influence

Really? Could you please explain how regulation is causing gas prices to go up?

Here's an article that explains the example of the state of California...

http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-09- ... -standards

That article is from 2009. It does not explain why prices are going up all over the country now, regardless of state regulation.

Hack, I think Dora is playing you.

Dora wrote:That article is from 2009. It does not explain why prices are going up all over the country now, regardless of state regulation."

I see your point. I'm partly to blame, because I failed to clarify when you asked the question:

Could you please explain how regulation is causing gas prices to go up?"

The discussion was what Obama could do to lower prices, not what is happening right now to bring them up. As I stated earlier, there are many factors associated with rising prices. The article is an example of a type of government regulation that has a direct effect on the cost of gas. I treated your question as a genuine inquiry about how government regulation could effect gas prices, so I tried to give an honest example. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples, but that was just the first one I could find quickly. I think a POTUS is in a unique position to reassess some of the existing government regulations and work with the states to find ways to lower the burden on consumers.

10ac wrote:Hack, I think Dora is playing you.

Could be. I don't really know Dora. I'm trying to be more puter-like in my discussions with people -- at least until I'm absolutely sure that I'm just wasting my time.

With Bush, they painted a cartoon picture with Bush and Cheney syphoning off gas profits to their buddies with cowboy hats and fat cigars.

I guess I don't remember this. I remember a lot of blame the rich, for speculation. I remember a lot of complaints about Bush having no long-term energy policy. But syphoning off gas profits for their buddies? Very little of that. Then again, every President has to put up with the stray excessive cartoonist now and then, so it may be possible (and also pretty rare, I suspect).

Perhaps it was like Fox did today. Complain about the majority of liberals who allegedly were angered at people cheering the death of Sam Bin Laden. I suspect there may be a few, but I haven't seen them. But if you only watch Fox, you'd think it was a lot more.

(I do recognize that MSNBC occasionally may also set up the negative straw rarity as the norm for the right), but that doesn't make it any more correct for Fox to do so.

Professor Tiger wrote:Another difference is that Obama can point to the unrest in the entire Middle East, and the off-line oil production in Libya in particular, as reasons for the skyrocketing price of gas. Also, unlike Bush and Cheney, his friends and fellow board members re not being enriched by the situation.

But I didn't believe the nonsensical excuses for $4+ gas under Bush, and I don't believe the nonsensical excuses for $4+ gas under Obama. Gas is $4+ because the oil companies can make it so, and make mind-boggling profits in the process. It's really no more complicated than that.

So how do you explain gas going back down to $2.85 after $4+ gas under Bush? Why would the oil companies let that happen?

worldwide economic collapse markedly decreased demand.

The price of oil is mostly due to demand and speculation. President Bush and President Obama had/have little to do with it

Yes, futures speculators can control huge inventories w/very little $$. Make'em put up at least 50% $$ and prices would go down.

Hacksaw wrote: The discussion was what Obama could do to lower prices, not what is happening right now to bring them up. As I stated earlier, there are many factors associated with rising prices. The article is an example of a type of government regulation that has a direct effect on the cost of gas. I treated your question as a genuine inquiry about how government regulation could effect gas prices, so I tried to give an honest example. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples, but that was just the first one I could find quickly. I think a POTUS is in a unique position to reassess some of the existing government regulations and work with the states to find ways to lower the burden on consumers.

I do appreciate your treating me seriously. I sometimes get silly but I think it’s obvious when I do that. I wasn’t doing that with you. This conversation has been fluid as conversations are wont to do. We don’t have post numbers here, but earlier on you said what Obama should do is

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.

I posted an article showing that domestic drilling is higher than ever. Given that prices have been steadily rising, clearly more drilling is not resulting in lower prices. That article also shows that the spill in the Gulf has not impacted on domestic drilling. So I asked you to show how government regulations are affecting the price. I expected you to say something about refinery capacity since that was your initial contention. High prices in California in 2009 don’t really address what is happening nationwide right now. I disagree with you that the President is in a position to do anything about state regulations to decrease prices. Regulations have not increased since he has come into office so I don’t see how changing regulations would impact prices. I think the current increase in prices is due to the political chaos taking place in the Middle East & I agree with Owlman in that I don’t think Obama can do anything about that. For the long term, I think we should be focusing on finding alternative energy sources so that we aren’t dependent on that crazy part of the world. But that will cost money &, as always, we are the ones who will be paying.

Oil is high because the market clearing price for a commodity is the marginal cost of the next barrel, the last barrel, the most costly final barrel that meets the total demand. If Syria or Libya goes down, who steps in to take their place, and what is their production cost? If the Saudi reserves are not what we think that they are, then prices need to be higher to entice producers in other places, like Nigeria and Venezuela to come to the party. It’s unlikely that the Saudi Arabia king will get unseated, but it’s a non-zero probability, right? Obama loves big oil!