Does the GOP need a new ("white knight" ) candidate?

[Ralph Greene]

Yeah Ralph, the republicans had such a hard time attracting voters in the 2010 elections.......

 

You didn't do it yourself. Some of us independednts joined you.

[napfirst]

You didn't do it yourself. Some of us independednts joined you.

 

My point exactly......your comment referenced attracting other voters.....that's exactly what they did in 2010 and since things (economy..) have not improved I expect that they will continue to appeal to those voters in the middle.........

[Ralph Greene]

My point exactly......your comment referenced attracting other voters.....that's exactly what they did in 2010 and since things (economy..) have not improved I expect that they will continue to appeal to those voters in the middle.........

 

 

Problem is.....we didn't know how far right you were. Won't make that mistake again. I have a lot of friends who feel same way I do. We're looking for a middle course. Someone to get things done.....who can bring people and country together, not divide us with social issues.

 

Take Rick Santorum for example. Wife and I really like that man. Like his hard work, like his family, like his political background and experience. We don't like his constant reference to religion as he tries to get votes from far right. We're supposed to have freedom of and from that kind of thing. Social issues not part of government to us. We think government has no say on issues about abortion, etc. We also know what a marriage is, and think current laws adequate. Not much need for further discusion. I hate this race to see who is the most conservative on social issues between Santorum, Romney, and Newt. It's killing the republican Party. It's what drove us from the party. We are the same conservatives we were 30 years ago......we believe in balanced budgets, being tough on crime, the idea government can help insure equal and fair opportunity but not handouts, great education for our kids, enough revenue to have good roads and parks, etc...The party abandoned us, we didn't stop being consevatives in the traditional sense. We're like most voters, it's not black or white to us. Like you....we don't exactly fit in some mold.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[Imawhosure]

QUESTION-------->why is it when the left puts in policys to LOWER the price of needed commodities such as bread and milk, it is a great idea? They insist it is not FAIR to the less fortunate individuals in our society to have the burden to pay for these things when their income is so low. Ok, if you say so, at least it is a debate point we can discuss.

 

On the other hand---------->why do they then think it is a good idea to keep another needed commodity artificially high like fuel which is also needed by their poor constituents? By policy, they restrict getting anymore, they refuse to allow natural resources to be used to create alternatives, and basically ignore the fact that the biggest detriment to our economic revival is lower/stable fuel prices along with helping to foster political unrest in other regions of the world.

 

From any political person logical way of thinking, this is exactly why the left has to win the election. If the GOP wins and fast tracks oilshale recovery, refineries, etc, and the price starts to fall causing the economy to rise along with the Middle East being moved towards moderately insignificant, nobody for the forseeable future is going to believe their economic model.

 

Take all of the "white noise" out of the debate and ask yourself this question----------->if the price of gasoline and diesel reasonably stabilized between 2.50 and 3.00 a gallon, how much more money could you personally spend for other goods, thus making our economy rise out of the doldrums? It is not rocket science, it is not lack of product, it is POLITICS that stops this from happening; and that is absolutely, positively, the politics of the LEFT!!!!!!

[Savetheplanet]

Yeah Ralph, the republicans had such a hard time attracting voters in the 2010 elections.......

 

There are many reasons that the Republicans won the mid term elections, one of them, historically, is that the party that wins big in the Presidential elections, almost always looses in the mid term elections. The pendulum swings back and forth.

 

The question in my mind is that if Romney wins the primary, will the base be energized and do the necessary ground work etc. that will be needed to get the conservative vote out? I know conservatives will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, but will they be inspired?

 

As far as the social issues that the candidates keep talking about, it works to rally the base, but come election time I think it will cost them. They are quickly loosing the female vote and lost the Hispanic vote long ago.

[Savetheplanet]

QUESTION-------->why is it when the left puts in policys to LOWER the price of needed commodities such as bread and milk, it is a great idea? They insist it is not FAIR to the less fortunate individuals in our society to have the burden to pay for these things when their income is so low. Ok, if you say so, at least it is a debate point we can discuss.

 

On the other hand---------->why do they then think it is a good idea to keep another needed commodity artificially high like fuel which is also needed by their poor constituents? By policy, they restrict getting anymore, they refuse to allow natural resources to be used to create alternatives, and basically ignore the fact that the biggest detriment to our economic revival is lower/stable fuel prices along with helping to foster political unrest in other regions of the world.

 

From any political person logical way of thinking, this is exactly why the left has to win the election. If the GOP wins and fast tracks oilshale recovery, refineries, etc, and the price starts to fall causing the economy to rise along with the Middle East being moved towards moderately insignificant, nobody for the forseeable future is going to believe their economic model.

 

Take all of the "white noise" out of the debate and ask yourself this question----------->if the price of gasoline and diesel reasonably stabilized between 2.50 and 3.00 a gallon, how much more money could you personally spend for other goods, thus making our economy rise out of the doldrums? It is not rocket science, it is not lack of product, it is POLITICS that stops this from happening; and that is absolutely, positively, the politics of the LEFT!!!!!!

 

Whosure, we on the left do feel it's a good idea to keep oil prices artificially high. But thats NOT what is being done by this administration imo. I wish they would jack up the price of oil to reflect the real price, like most of the rest of the world does. Gas in America is SUPER CHEAP. Blaming the Dems for the high price is just playing politics, do you really think that if we started the pipeline today it would lower the price? Sure there are a few things that the Administration could do that would help, but it would be so minuscule that it's not really even worth discussing.

 

Just open the front page of any paper these days and you can see why we need to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Climate change.

 

I wonder what the price of gas is today in London?

Edited March 12, 2012 by Savetheplanet

[Imawhosure]

Whosure, we on the left do feel it's a good idea to keep oil prices artificially high. But thats NOT what is being done by this administration imo. I wish they would jack up the price of oil to reflect the real price, like most of the rest of the world does. Gas in America is SUPER CHEAP. Blaming the Dems for the high price is just playing politics, do you really think that if we started the pipeline today it would lower the price? Sure there are a few things that the Administration could do that would help, but it would be so minuscule that it's not really even worth discussing.

 

Just open the front page of any paper these days and you can see why we need to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Climate change.

 

I wonder what the price of gas is today in London?

 

 

Nice seeing you again planet, but your assertions are bogus. Have you read where if we tap our shale reserves along with Canada, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia?

 

Weening ourselves off fossil fuels is a very noble goal, but getting our economy and country back on track is a better idea. Oil executives have stated that if it is opened up, the price will fall dramatically. Now you might insist it is crazy to listen to oil exectives and economists, but your alternative is to listen to a community organizer President, who is listening to a bunch of greenies who happen to be part of his base that will throw him overboard if he doesn't toe the line.

 

If the GOP has any sense, this will be the number 1 debate point of this election. If they are elected and can't deliver/doesn't work, then you guys starting in 2016 will be in forever, now won't you. Unless you haven't researched it, you know it will, which means you are arguing on a purely green debate point, and you can't let that happen or your guys are out for the forseeable future.

 

And 1 more thing------------>tell all the nice people here if the reason that Europe pays so much for fuel is because their base cost is somehow higher than ours, or rather because the taxes put on the fuel afterwords. In other words---------->are you suggesting we tax it even higher while forcing less of it to be made, making the base cost higher than it should be to start with? Are you; like most left wing people, suggesting we RAISE taxes through the roof to get the outcome you want?

 

If that is your stance in this matter, then what it is called is government interference, communistic/socialistic government social planning, etc. Before you say I am just playing politics by my description in the last sentence, give us your, best, description, of a government manipulation of markets that are imposed by their desire to have a fixed outcome which central planners have ALREADY decided upon regardless of cost to consumers residing in a supposedley free market!!!!!! I call that LIBERALISM with a dose of fanatical eco freak injected for good measure. You call it anything you wish.

 

I may disagree with your stance, but I support your right to have it. Still, if anyone is playing politics with the wallets of the citizens of this country, it would be you, and those you support for a vision you can't deliver with current technology. When the market by cost decides that your ideas are correct, you will have your way. I will applaud that change as it means the cost for it has dropped lower than the REAL cost of fossil fuel alternatives. You refuse to wait for the market to take its course, so you are going to push your agenda through, America be damned cause we gotta look like Europe? Says who, you, Obama, and the eco people who support him?

 

As an American; and only 1 mind you, I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 12, 2012 by Imawhosure

[Imawhosure]

Nice seeing you again planet, but your assertions are bogus. Have you read where if we tap our shale reserves along with Canada, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia?

 

Weening ourselves off fossil fuels is a very noble goal, but getting our economy and country back on track is a better idea. Oil executives have stated that if it is opened up, the price will fall dramatically. Now you might insist it is crazy to listen to oil exectives and economists, but your alternative is to listen to a community organizer President, who is listening to a bunch of greenies who happen to be part of his base that will throw him overboard if he doesn't toe the line.

 

If the GOP has any sense, this will be the number 1 debate point of this election. If they are elected and can't deliver/doesn't work, then you guys starting in 2016 will be in forever, now won't you. Unless you haven't researched it, you know it will, which means you are arguing on a purely green debate point, and you can't let that happen or your guys are out for the forseeable future.

 

And 1 more thing------------>tell all the nice people here if the reason that Europe pays so much for fuel is because their base cost is somehow higher than ours, or rather because the taxes put on the fuel afterwords. In other words---------->are you suggesting we tax it even higher while forcing less of it to be made, making the base cost higher than it should be to start with? Are you; like most left wing people, suggesting we RAISE taxes through the roof to get the outcome you want?

 

If that is your stance in this matter, then what it is called is government interference, communistic/socialistic government social planning, etc. Before you say I am just playing politics by my description in the last sentence, give us your, best, description, of a government manipulation of markets that are imposed by their desire to have a fixed outcome which central planners have ALREADY decided upon regardless of cost to consumers residing in a supposedley free market!!!!!! I call that LIBERALISM with a dose of fanatical eco freak injected for good measure. You call it anything you wish.

 

I may disagree with your stance, but I support your right to have it. Still, if anyone is playing politics with the wallets of the citizens of this country, it would be you, and those you support for a vision you can't deliver with current technology. When the market by cost decides that your ideas are correct, you will have your way. I will applaud that change as it means the cost for it has dropped lower than the REAL cost of fossil fuel alternatives. You refuse to wait for the market to take its course, so you are going to push your agenda through, America be damned cause we gotta look like Europe? Says who, you, Obama, and the eco people who support him?

 

As an American; and only 1 mind you, I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And oh, by the way--------->you guys must really be squirming as more and more oil reserves and ways to extract them come on line. The only way for you to keep the agenda intact is create policys to stop extraction, which I see you have done very, very, well. Kudos to your lobby for figuring a way to starve this country of reasonably priced energy, all the while claiming there isn't any to be had. If the GOP can prove what you have done, (and that is not a given) I am looking for a landslide-)

[rn4]

More domestic drilling will not end the need for imports. The United States holds only 2% of the planet's proven oil reserves, but Americans consume 25% of the world's daily output of crude oil.

 

U.S. Crude Oil production since 1980

 

We are producing the most crude since 2003.

 

World oil proved researves by country.

Edited March 12, 2012 by rn4

[Ralph Greene]

After thinking about it some, and studying the data......I conclude that high oil prices (in US dollars) and with it high gasoline prices are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in US. High oil prices are making all kinds of other energy sources viable, wind, solar, geo thermal, alge, etc and making formerly expensive processes viable (shale oil), and also making it economic to work on old wells, etc. High oil prices are putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work. Auto manufacturing....hybrid and electric, and on and on and on. It's hard to turn on TV without seeing evidence of this in some part of country. High oil prices are a big driver of the rising employment numbers we have been getting the last few months.

 

We used to think hi gasoline prices were a tax on Americans and would kill the economy and job creation.....and some still think this way.....but evidence shows it is not so (at least to a point), and Americans are adjusting to higher energy costs. It's true lower income folks are hurt by higher energy prices, but US as a whole benefits. Investors already understand this....politicians will figure it out soon. Not saying hurting one group at expense of another is right or good, just saying that's how it is.

 

And it's rediculous to think if RBOB gasoline is trading for $3.00-$3.50 US in commodity markets all over the world, it can sell for $2.00 here at same time. (RBOB gasoline goes across screen on CNBC all the time.....it's commodity price before blending, taxes, or mark up). A world wide recession could bring down world prices......but who wants that? We've seen that picture.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[xr7g428]

Ralph that is perhaps the most laughable post you have ever made. The kind of logic you used would also tell us that breaking a window is good for the economy. Higher energy prices lead to higher prices on everything that requires energy input, and that means just about everything. If you raise the price of goods, you get reduced demand. Reduced demand requires less of all inputs, labor, materials, facilities, everything. It will take a few weeks for the impact of rising energy costs to take effect, so give it a couple of months and then tell us how great high energy costs really are.

[xr7g428]

RN4 the one thing that your not understanding is that the estimation of reserves is always qualified with the term "recoverable" There are two components of what is recoverable, the price, and the available technology. As the technology changes so does the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered. Current reserve estimates do not include ANY shale oil even though about a third of what we are now producing is coming out of shale oil deposits. The technology is changing rapidly, and mostly in secret: if you know how to produce oil from shale you won't be sharing that with your competitors... The Bakken shale contains about three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia. And then there is the Marcellus shale... Oil and gas are priced based on old estimates right now. There is an immense amount of oil that is revcverable at $600 a barrel, but the peak price has to go high enough for the experienced oil and gas investors to believe that it will stay above $60 for the foreseeable future.

[RangerM]

After thinking about it some, and studying the data......I conclude that high oil prices (in US dollars) and with it high gasoline prices are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in US. High oil prices are making all kinds of other energy sources viable, wind, solar, geo thermal, alge, etc and making formerly expensive processes viable (shale oil), and also making it economic to work on old wells, etc. High oil prices are putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work. Auto manufacturing....hybrid and electric, and on and on and on. It's hard to turn on TV without seeing evidence of this in some part of country. High oil prices are a big driver of the rising employment numbers we have been getting the last few months.

 

We used to think hi gasoline prices were a tax on Americans and would kill the economy and job creation.....and some still think this way.....but evidence shows it is not so (at least to a point), and Americans are adjusting to higher energy costs. It's true lower income folks are hurt by higher energy prices, but US as a whole benefits. Investors already understand this....politicians will figure it out soon. Not saying hurting one group at expense of another is right or good, just saying that's how it is.

 

Consider Ralph.

 

There are three (primary) inputs to manufacturing and selling a product on the marketplace: raw materials, labor, and energy. (We'll ignore other costs like taxes, environmental compliance, etc for now)

 

When you increase the cost of any of those three inputs, you make the cost of those finished goods increase. Higher costs, lower demand. Lower demand, reduced supply. Reduced supply, the lower the need for raw materials, labor, and energy.

 

All things being equal, reduced energy consumption is a positive when it's done through increased efficiency. It allows for increases in profits and/or reduction in prices. Either way, it paves the way for increases in demand, increases in supply, and increases in the need for raw materials and labor.

 

I understand the need to develop new technologies, but oil came into favor by being plentiful, cheap, and efficient. None of the new technologies can match oil in most (or all) of those attributes. Many of them are even dependent on oil for their viability.

 

It's true that making oil cost more, makes other forms of energy production more attractive, perhaps to the point of increases in hiring in those industries, but those forms of energy production still cost more--pushing us back to lowering the needs for raw materials, labor and energy.

[Ralph Greene]

Ralph that is perhaps the most laughable post you have ever made. The kind of logic you used would also tell us that breaking a window is good for the economy. Higher energy prices lead to higher prices on everything that requires energy input, and that means just about everything. If you raise the price of goods, you get reduced demand. Reduced demand requires less of all inputs, labor, materials, facilities, everything. It will take a few weeks for the impact of rising energy costs to take effect, so give it a couple of months and then tell us how great high energy costs really are.

 

 

I didn't say high energy prices are great. Just saying they are helping more than they are hurting our economy. Stock market thinks so too. The way investors look at this is changing. Sure there is a price point where demand destruction occurs. But it's higher than before. Maybe $4.50 per gallon gasoline. Only a recession can bring them back to where Newt talks. I follow RBOB gasoline.....It looks to me like it's peaking early (maybe now if far east cools off)....before driving season.

 

Europeans think our gasoline prices are rediculously low at $4-5 per gallon. Others think same. They are not scared off from investing in US.

[RangerM]

I didn't say high energy prices are great. Just saying they are helping more than they are hurting our economy. Stock market thinks so too. The way investors look at this is changing. Sure there is a price point where demand destruction occurs. But it's higher than before. Maybe $4.50 per gallon gasoline. Only a recession can bring them back to where Newt talks. I follow RBOB gasoline.....It looks to me like it's peaking early (maybe now if far east cools off)....before driving season.

Costs are costs, Ralph. When the price of something (particularly a necessary commodity) goes up, it leaves less for other things.

 

I wouldn't think you'd suggest that the rising cost of corn is a good thing, because of the effect on everything corn goes into. It's not that there's no substitute for corn, but they may be either more expensive or not as optimal.

 

People perhaps aren't as shocked by the high price of gasoline as before, because they've seen it before. But that doesn't mean they don't react to it. And the backlash is likely a delayed effect. Fewer trips this summer. Or holding onto that old car longer because the cost of hybrids has skyrocketed. Or less going out to eat. Or less demand for non-essentials.

Europeans think our gasoline prices are rediculously low at $4-5 per gallon. Others think same. They are not scared off from investing in US.

 

We should be comparing ourselves to ourselves of a few years ago. People were investing back then too. Yes, stock prices have perfomed well with the reduction of labor and higher profits. But even though your retirement funds have rebounded, there are millions of people who aren't building theirs, because they can't.

[Ralph Greene]

Costs are costs, Ralph. When the price of something (particularly a necessary commodity) goes up, it leaves less for other things.

 

I wouldn't think you'd suggest that the rising cost of corn is a good thing, because of the effect on everything corn goes into. It's not that there's no substitute for corn, but they may be either more expensive or not as optimal.

 

People perhaps aren't as shocked by the high price of gasoline as before, because they've seen it before. But that doesn't mean they don't react to it. And the backlash is likely a delayed effect. Fewer trips this summer. Or holding onto that old car longer because the cost of hybrids has skyrocketed. Or less going out to eat. Or less demand for non-essentials.

 

 

We should be comparing ourselves to ourselves of a few years ago. People were investing back then too. Yes, stock prices have perfomed well with the reduction of labor and higher profits. But even though your retirement funds have rebounded, there are millions of people who aren't building theirs, because they can't.

 

Another thing. In addition to increased employment, higher oil prices seem to be encouraging a huge increase in entrepreneurism in the oil industry. I'm seeing reports of huge increases in crude production as a result of these higher prices. From ONSHORE facilities. So no need for any President to have to approve drilling in sensitive areas. This is free enterprise at work....probably sowing the seeds of over supply in US amd eventually some lower prices at the pump. Kinda like the Nat gas situation. A few years Nat ngas was over $10 per M cu ft. Those prices caused intense speculation and production increases.....this AM, Nat gas was about $2.35 per M cu ft.

[Imawhosure]

Another thing. In addition to increased employment, higher oil prices seem to be encouraging a huge increase in entrepreneurism in the oil industry. I'm seeing reports of huge increases in crude production as a result of these higher prices. From ONSHORE facilities. So no need for any President to have to approve drilling in sensitive areas. This is free enterprise at work....probably sowing the seeds of over supply in US amd eventually some lower prices at the pump. Kinda like the Nat gas situation. A few years Nat ngas was over $10 per M cu ft. Those prices caused intense speculation and production increases.....this AM, Nat gas was about $2.35 per M cu ft.

 

 

So then Ralph, you to are a supporter of government central planning with manipulation of markets to get the outcome desired.......even if it takes needed money from hands of consumers to bolster the economy, forcing them to spend it on a commodity kept artificially high!

 

Don't know how old any of you are, but I know when I was in school who we studied that did that, what the name of that country was, and who ran it.

[Ralph Greene]

So then Ralph, you to are a supporter of government central planning with manipulation of markets to get the outcome desired.......even if it takes needed money from hands of consumers to bolster the economy, forcing them to spend it on a commodity kept artificially high!

 

Don't know how old any of you are, but I know when I was in school who we studied that did that, what the name of that country was, and who ran it.

 

 

Just the opposite. Current higher oil prices have nothing to do with government action. (at least not our government action) They are world markets at work. However.....governments can, to some extent cause currency fluctuations, and as our dollar weakens energy in our curency goes up in price to us. Weak dollar does help us with exports of energy products though. And that's growing fast also.

 

Bush and now Obama mostly have had same policy with regard to drilling. Current situation is basically econ 101 at work. I am saying there is no need to approve drilling in sensitive areas, because we will soon be awash in oil from currently approved ONSHORE sources.

 

One way Newt may be right. If crude builds to a big surplus in world, and along with it refined product, then our gasoline might very well be $2.50 per gal in our currency. But Newt, or any other president, won't have caused it.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[Imawhosure]

Just the opposite. Current higher oil prices have nothing to do with government action. They are world markets at work. However.....governments can, to some extent cause currency fluctuations, and as our dollar weakens energy in our curency goes up in price to us.

 

Bush and now Obama mostly have had same policy with regard to drilling. Current situation is basically econ 101 at work. I am saying there is no need to approve drilling in sensitive areas, because we will soon be awash in oil from currently approved ONSHORE sources.

 

One way Newt may be right. If crude builds to a big surplus in world, and along with it refined product, then our gasoline might very well be $2.50 per gal in our currency. But Newt, or any other president, won't have caused it.

 

Well then you and I can agree on some points for sure.

 

One thing I will say though is that at least 50% of our economic problems lie at the feet of energy prices, and fluctuations. I also believe this administration will do whatever it can to stop oil recovery for the forseeable future in any new areas to promote their vision.

 

Your word "sensitive" is an excellent example. Oil in Alaska, sensitive. Oil offshore....sensitive. Shale oil in the rocky mountains....also sensitive. Pipeline through Nebraska.....sensitive. If we picked a number such as 100 and said---------->there are 100 places in the United States at this moment that are off limits because of "sensitivity," and we want them rated 1 through 100, 100 being the most sensitive, 1 being the least. We then will drill 1 through 35 right now, and leave the rest alone.......do you know the screaming that would happen!

 

It is NOT so much about sensitivity as much as it is about central planning by our democratic friends in Washingtons vision. To succeed, they have to push the price of fuel high enough to support their theory of expensive technology we are not yet in possession of.

 

Now I ask you---------->how long has Europe been taxed to death on fuel? Years, on top of years, on top of years, yes? Central planning, wouldn't you say? And exactly how far ahead of us are they in fuel cell, or hybrid, or electric car technology after all these years of ridiculous fuel prices? They aren't as far as I know. We in the free market are ahead of them, lol.

 

Therefore, looking like Europe as some of these posters want us to, is all a red herring. When the technology and its cost become LOWER than fossil fuel, I have no doubt that we in the Americas will be the leaders of change. To try and push it now without the technology needed is just screwing our economy; which makes absolutely no sense at all, especially when your citizens are the ones paying the price......the ones with the LEAST amount of money are hurt the worst, and I always thought thats who the Democrats were supposed to be protecting!

 

If we can put a man on the moon in less than 10 yrs using 60s technology, there is no doubt in my mind that within 4 years we can open up drilling, build a few refineries, and drop the price of fuel to 2.50 cents. That is what scares the hell out of central planners-)

Edited March 13, 2012 by Imawhosure

[Ralph Greene]

Well then you and I can agree on some points for sure.

 

One thing I will say though is that at least 50% of our economic problems lie at the feet of energy prices, and fluctuations. I also believe this administration will do whatever it can to stop oil recovery for the forseeable future in any new areas to promote their vision.

 

Your word "sensitive" is an excellent example. Oil in Alaska, sensitive. Oil offshore....sensitive. Shale oil in the rocky mountains....also sensitive. Pipeline through Nebraska.....sensitive. If we picked a number such as 100 and said---------->there are 100 places in the United States at this moment that are off limits because of "sensitivity," and we want them rated 1 through 100, 100 being the most sensitive, 1 being the least. We then will drill 1 through 35 right now, and leave the rest alone.......do you know the screaming that would happen!

 

It is NOT so much about sensitivity as much as it is about central planning by our democratic friends in Washingtons vision. To succeed, they have to push the price of fuel high enough to support their theory of expensive technology we are not yet in possession of.

 

Now I ask you---------->how long has Europe been taxed to death on fuel? Years, on top of years, on top of years, yes? Central planning, wouldn't you say? And exactly how far ahead of us are they in fuel cell, or hybrid, or electric car technology after all these years of ridiculous fuel prices? They aren't as far as I know. We in the free market are ahead of them, lol.

 

Therefore, looking like Europe as some of these posters want us to, is all a red herring. When the technology and its cost become LOWER than fossil fuel, I have no doubt that we in the Americas will be the leaders of change. To try and push it now without the technology needed is just screwing our economy; which makes absolutely no sense at all, especially when your citizens are the ones paying the price......the ones with the LEAST amount of money are hurt the worst, and I always thought thats who the Democrats were supposed to be protecting!

 

If we can put a man on the moon in less than 10 yrs using 60s technology, there is no doubt in my mind that within 4 years we can open up drilling, build a few refineries, and drop the price of fuel to 2.50 cents. That is what scares the hell out of central planners-)

 

I use the "sensitive" because I don't have the facts. I suspect some of those areas are more "sensitive" than others. Personally....I thnk you could do some drilling in the currently off limits Alaskan areas. Not sure I want more oil and gas rigs off Florida coast.

 

Where we disagree......I just don't see a conspiracy in Washington from current administration to either keep prices high or limit drilling. After all.....they want to get reelected. What I do see is a democratic administration, one that is more liberal than we may be, who gives environmental issues more importance than republicans might do. Just a natural difference between parties. Just democrats doing what democrats do, tax and spend, etc. BTW.....also favoring unions where they can, something I don't like. They are just being democrats. Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it doesn't. Same for republicans.....sometimes they act stupid I think, especially over social issues. But usually they act like republicans do, cut taxes, fight change, borrow and spend, etc. I expect it. That's why I'm a registered independent.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[Imawhosure]

I use the "sensitive" because I don't have the facts. I suspect some of those areas are more "sensitive" than others. Personally....I thnk you could do some drilling in the currently off limits Alaskan areas. Not sure I want more oil and gas rigs off Florida coast.

 

Where we disagree......I just don't see a conspiracy in Washington from current administration to either keep prices high or limit drilling. After all.....they want to get reelected. What I do see is a democratic administration, one that is more liberal than we may be, who gives environmental issues more importance than republicans might do. Just a natural difference between parties. Just democrats doing what democrats do, tax and spend, etc. BTW.....also favoring unions where they can, something I don't like. They are just being democrats. Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it doesn't. Same for republicans.....sometimes they act stupid I think, especially over social issues. But usually they act like republicans do, cut taxes, fight change, borrow and spend, etc. I expect it. That's why I'm a registered independent.

 

 

I respect your opinion Ralph, but in this instance we can then agree to disagree. Nobody is going to push a technology that will cost way more to do the same thing, unless they can force the prices of present technology high enough to make it viable. Business could never do that, nor would they try as it would fail unless they had a monopoly. The only entity that would try something like that is government since they control access by policy.

 

If you look back even on the internet, refineries have attempted to be built by private equity firms in remote places. The thing that happens each and every time is that eco people sue over anything to prevent their construction.

 

The vision can not work unless fuel prices are kept high by tieing up whatever will cause the prices to fall. Once you understand that concept, it is easy to see how they do it.

 

Is it Obama himself? Of course not! It is rather the idea that is permeated by left leaning people that somehow our fuel source will ruin the planet. The only problem is---->that these people are a large constituency and supporter of the left, so they have to be given their due. The problem with this is that it has to be spun for the BETTERMENT of all involved instead of actual bending at the knee for base support. It is kinda like the GOP having to bend at the knee for Christian support, but the left has spun their excuse much better.

 

It is all politics, which is absolutely distasteful to me from both sides. They both want to keep their 40% of the populace in their camp by giving policy gifts, then really only care about us that are the 20% independents who decide each national election.

 

What we have to decide is---------->is it really all about the economy, and how much are fuel prices stunting its growth; then weigh it against their supposition that our economy by using our resources, will somehow melt the planet.

 

Should you come up with factual evidence one way or the other, please let me know. But as of this writing, their evidence has been refuted, therefore I have no choice but to choose the American free market choice, over central planning by the Democrats to put forward a vision whos time has not yet arrived because of technological issues.

[Savetheplanet]

Nice seeing you again planet, but your assertions are bogus. Have you read where if we tap our shale reserves along with Canada, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia?

 

Weening ourselves off fossil fuels is a very noble goal, but getting our economy and country back on track is a better idea. Oil executives have stated that if it is opened up, the price will fall dramatically. Now you might insist it is crazy to listen to oil exectives and economists, but your alternative is to listen to a community organizer President, who is listening to a bunch of greenies who happen to be part of his base that will throw him overboard if he doesn't toe the line.

 

If the GOP has any sense, this will be the number 1 debate point of this election. If they are elected and can't deliver/doesn't work, then you guys starting in 2016 will be in forever, now won't you. Unless you haven't researched it, you know it will, which means you are arguing on a purely green debate point, and you can't let that happen or your guys are out for the forseeable future.

 

And 1 more thing------------>tell all the nice people here if the reason that Europe pays so much for fuel is because their base cost is somehow higher than ours, or rather because the taxes put on the fuel afterwords. In other words---------->are you suggesting we tax it even higher while forcing less of it to be made, making the base cost higher than it should be to start with? Are you; like most left wing people, suggesting we RAISE taxes through the roof to get the outcome you want?

 

If that is your stance in this matter, then what it is called is government interference, communistic/socialistic government social planning, etc. Before you say I am just playing politics by my description in the last sentence, give us your, best, description, of a government manipulation of markets that are imposed by their desire to have a fixed outcome which central planners have ALREADY decided upon regardless of cost to consumers residing in a supposedley free market!!!!!! I call that LIBERALISM with a dose of fanatical eco freak injected for good measure. You call it anything you wish.

 

I may disagree with your stance, but I support your right to have it. Still, if anyone is playing politics with the wallets of the citizens of this country, it would be you, and those you support for a vision you can't deliver with current technology. When the market by cost decides that your ideas are correct, you will have your way. I will applaud that change as it means the cost for it has dropped lower than the REAL cost of fossil fuel alternatives. You refuse to wait for the market to take its course, so you are going to push your agenda through, America be damned cause we gotta look like Europe? Says who, you, Obama, and the eco people who support him?

 

As an American; and only 1 mind you, I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah it's nice to see you are still here also, coming back makes me feel like I am still part of a big dysfunctional family

 

Just to resate so no one gets the wrong idea. I think we all want the same things, security for our children, safe water to drink, clean air to breathe, independence from to much government etc. So when I say I want fossil fuels to become more expensive, weather it's by an increase in taxes or the free market, I don't want people to suffer financially out of spite or mean to come across as negitive in any way. I truly believe that fossil fuels are affecting our health, our ecosystems, or simply put, our biosphere.

 

I feel that we are not paying the true cost of a lot of things that effect our biosphere, (including our food) I don't want to debate ACC here again, we filled pages with our debate a few years ago, I learned a lot from that thread, but I think we should just agree to disagree on ACC. Nothing wrong with a little thread drift though.

It seems to me that the Republicans want to make gas prices the focus of the Prezx. debate. Fine, the Dems want to Exploit the "war on women" so they are no better, it's an election year, which is very intriguing to me and very entertaining at the same time, also a bit sad. Anyway it seems Obama can take a very small part of the blame game on gas prices, but I feel he has very little controll over the price.

 

You talk about a free market, is subsidies to oil companies a free market, are tariffs on Brazil energy sources free market?

 

Seems to me that there is plenty of blame to go around, everywhere from OPEC, to speculators to consumers to politicians. A good example is where is the blame in the media for the consumer? When will America quit buying SUV's and other vehicles that get horrible MPG? When will America embrace the diesel car? My VW gets 50mph, I never see ppl. driving TDI's .

 

On another note The GOP candidates were very entertaing this last week, I am from the south, and those guys trying to swoon the Cracker barrel crowd just did not work for me, as a matter of fact I thought it was really funny, can't get enough of Mitt talkin bout eatin grits and such like. then, to top it off Jeff Foxworthy campaigns with him, you can't make this sh!t up.

 

 

You might not be a redneck if you are a multi million dollar comedian who campaigns for a millionaire from way up north.

 

Don't mean to offend anybody with that

[Ralph Greene]

Imawhosure.....I agree the liberal "vision" requires North American crude prices over $60. Probably over $80 for it to work well.

 

I think we're on the same page. At least in the same book. Cheers!

[RangerM]

And yet strangely enough, Three major Northeast US supplying refineries shutdown and two were up for sale, because of low profit margins.

A facility has many cost inputs. The cost of oil, labor, maintenance, environmental compliance, taxes. Any one of those items contributes to lowering the profitability of a facility.

 

I just left a client's facility yesterday. As of 2013, if current regulatory limits stand, they cannot justify upfitting the facility to meet the new regulations because they aren't profitable enough to absorb that cost. About 100-200 people put out of work.

[rn4]

Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States