Gas Prices, Liberals and the Truth

While it is often difficult to look past the hype and political correctness many seem enamored with, in order to get to the truth, one at times must make the effort.

You’ve seen the signs and heard all the protests blaming blaming Bush, Cheney, evil oil companies and Republicans for high gas prices but the real cause of rising gas prices and the faltering U.S. economy are liberals. Liberal agenda’s against refineries, oil exploration and drilling and Democratic votes in congress have taken America out of the oil production business and put it in the oil brokerage business.

What was intended to be a television commercial for why big oil is bad turned out to be a lesson in world economics for anyone who cared to watch it. Consider some of the following statements made at the hearing.

John Lowe, Executive Vice President of Conoco/Phillips:
Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world’s available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon Senior Vice President -Exxon Mobil
With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

The average price of gas last year was near $2.80. Approximately 58% percent of that was the direct cost of crude oil. 17% went to federal, state and local taxes, 4% represents oil company profits. That figure is relatively unchanged from the previous decade.

Laugh At Liberals

We get so caught up in blaming one man for all of our troubles; I mean it is vastly more convenient, it just isn't true. At least not to anyone that has the "gumption" to look past all the hype and into the truth.

It is far easier to place blame on the "BIG BAD OIL COMPANIES" and not on ourselves for electing incompetent liberal boobs that really don't care how much we pay for gas as long as we drive less and it looks bad on the sitting Republican President.

The ultimate goal is of course the defeat of all things "Capitalist" and everything "Conservative" and the Liberals really don't care how much they hurt you and me in their process.

Semper

gotta get rid of blame, because all of us are to blame. I would often go to protests where many ''liberals'' were blaming capitalism. Little did they know that I like to play devils advocate on such occasions and that I was probably the only capitalist in the surrounding square block.

The blame game needs to stop. And so does the extreme categorizing of human beings. You're a liberal! Your a conservative. STFU! you're a human being and you know it.


great post by the way!

This where I disagree with the whole "we're all the same" bit.

Granted we are all the human beings and are the same in that sense, but we are a divided people in terms of our political views. Conservative and Liberal are in fact good terms for these groups of people, whether they like to be categorized as such or not. Sometimes people get too concerned with trying to mesh the two, "just for the sake of getting things done."

This is where one of my big gripes with McCain comes into play. He is far too concerned with "crossing the aisle" and working with Liberals to "get things done." This would be all well and good if he wouldn't compromise my Conservative values in the process. His idea of "crossing the aisle" is moving Conservatives to the left. I would prefer he "cross the aisle" as Reagan did and bring the Libs over to "our" side.

We are "right" after all.

reply to post by semperfortis


Semper, if i may offer my opinion - i believe if "bush" were a 'liberal' you might be singing a different tune.

The dems took overwhelming control of the house and senate for the first time in nearly 12 years in Jan of 2007.

I totally and completely agree with you - the democratic congress has done absolutely NOTHING like they said they would. I would not argue one iota with you there. However:

Saying that its liberal fault is just asinine IMO, atleast to the degree that i believe your implications leave out the responsibility of Bush.

I've already shown many times the increase in gasoline costs before Jan 2007, and after Jan 2007.

If Bush were doing his job, things would've been in place long before now in order to control the price of gas.

Bush is like any other politician wherein he's raking in the money while we pay for it.

I feel blessed that the $4.00 a gallon gas costs don't cripple my wife and myself, we do just fine for ourselves.

But i see how it affects other people.

I blame Bush
I blame liberals
I blame democrats and republicans
and most of all - i Blame big oil.

The politicians let them get away with it, but big oil is the culprit.

Its like a police officer letting a murderer go.
Who's more guilty?

I say the murderer, if he had never done the crime he comitted, the police officer would never have let him go.

Just my 2 cents

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

The dems took overwhelming control of the house and senate for the first time in nearly 12 years in Jan of 2007.

It is not necessary to have control of Congress to stifle legislation, or even consideration of a proposal. Witness the way the Dems squashed any discussion of Social Security reform several years ago. That is just one example.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
If Bush were doing his job, things would've been in place long before now in order to control the price of gas.

He is not omnipotent. He can propose, but it is up to Congress to legislate. As a matter of fact, he has been proposing steps all during his entire tenure, but they have almost all been squashed by the Dems to further their agenda.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Bush is like any other politician wherein he's raking in the money while we pay for it.

Oh please. He gets $400K/year, about 1/100 of what he could make on the outside. There are conflict of interest statutes, you know.

If you would do the research, you would realize that Bush has done more to fund and encourage alternative energy R&D than any previous administration. His problem is, he doesn't blow his horn, like the typical politician, so the general public is unaware of his efforts.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is not necessary to have control of Congress to stifle legislation, or even consideration of a proposal.

That does go both ways and the Republicans have also been effective at doing exactly the same thing when in the minority.

He is not omnipotent. He can propose, but it is up to Congress to legislate. As a matter of fact, he has been proposing steps all during his entire tenure, but they have almost all been squashed by the Dems to further their agenda.

He can show leadership which IMHO he has failed to do. Nor has he reached a compromise with the Dems on these important issues. His enrgy plan to be quite honest by and large supports much of the same. The simple truth is we cannot drill or ethanol our way out of this issue.

Oh please. He gets $400K/year, about 1/100 of what he could make on the outside. There are conflict of interest statutes, you know.

Jso, lets not be that naive eh? Every president from gets thier $$$$$ rewards after they leave office and Bush will be no exception. From those donations to the 100K speeches at Exxon he may not be getting the money now but trust me its waiting for him. Clinton was no different with his selling of pardons towards the end of his term.

If you would do the research, you would realize that Bush has done more to fund and encourage alternative energy R&D than any previous administration.

That may be so, but............

He has ignored the issue of global warming, he has pushed the issue of corn based ethanol which lets face it is at best chasing our tail for now. And while the dollar figures for research and energy efficency may have gone up, the eprcentage has actually dropped.


As always the true answer lies between the two extremes on both sides:

1) More nuclear power plants (taking over a big chunk of electricity production would help reduce pressure for more and more gas and coal and free up resources for other areas.

2) Hyper efficent coal plants that give off almost zero pollution.

3) dramatic increase in fuel efficency standards. and energy efficency standards accrost the board.

4) Huge investments in renewable power sources and carbon mitigation


etc etc etc.

I really think you have to take a balanced approach from both sides

I feel for the oilmen. Why must they suffer the liberal leash?



I mean poor Lee Raymond's retirement package was only around $400 million. Seriously that's all he got! Sure it's one of the largest packages in U.S. history but he could have gotten so much more if we let them drill where ever the hell they want to.

Even when it looked like the republicans were in bed with big oil I always knew it was the liberals somehow.

Maybe even the Clintons.
Anyone explored that angle yet?

Damn liberals.


- Lee

reply to post by jsobecky

Oh please. He gets $400K/year, about 1/100 of what he could make on the outside. There are conflict of interest statutes, you know.

If you would do the research, you would realize that Bush has done more to fund and encourage alternative energy R&D than any previous administration. His problem is, he doesn't blow his horn, like the typical politician, so the general public is unaware of his efforts

Oh, i've done my research. More than you are willing to admit. And my information comes from the source, not from Rush or Hannity

FredT already beat me to the punch:
Bush's money comes from side deals, and you're blisfully blind to this fact if you choose to ignore it. It happens for every president, not just bush.

My problem with Bush is my gas prices are more than 3 times higher than when he first took office, and he blames it on a group of people who have been in office since Jan 2007. So let see here ... 19 months = complete responsibility?

I'd give you that - had the gas prices not already been on the sharp up-rise before democrats took control.

Im not "standing up" fro the democratic congress. They were elected on the grounds they'd do something about gas prices, and they've done nothing but "milk the clock" like one of those ever annoying employee's you have to deal with from time to time who doesnt absolutely nothing in hopes you'll fire them so they can collect unemployment.

But what they dont realize is i cover my own butt on unemployment, find ways to fire them, and go with it anyways. You want to insult my intelligence, and steal my money, im gona make you pay for it.

And im almost not going to "let bush off with a warning" He's had 7 years and done NOTHING.

He has accomplished WAR in 7 years. that is all. War.

There are conflict of interest statutes, you know.

NO kidding? I didnt know that .... :shk:

I also didnt know that there were laws against illegal wiretaps.
I also didnt know that there were laws against price gouging.
I also didnt know.....


Your blind support of Bush is admirable, if only from an entertainment standpoint

You have your opinion
I have mine

reply to post by FredT

Originally posted by FredT
He can show leadership which IMHO he has failed to do. Nor has he reached a compromise with the Dems on these important issues. His enrgy plan to be quite honest by and large supports much of the same. The simple truth is we cannot drill or ethanol our way out of this issue.

I was watching Nancy Pelosi on CSPAN today, and what you just said is very similar to what she was trying to sell. Straight from the Democrat's Talking Points.

Oh please. He gets $400K/year, about 1/100 of what he could make on the outside. There are conflict of interest statutes, you know.

Originally posted by FredT

Jso, lets not be that naive eh? Every president from gets thier $$$$$ rewards after they leave office and Bush will be no exception. From those donations to the 100K speeches at Exxon he may not be getting the money now but trust me its waiting for him. Clinton was no different with his selling of pardons towards the end of his term.

Don't be so obtuse, FredT. We're not even talking about the same thing, and I think you know it. We're talking about the absurd notion that Bush is currently raking in millions from his policies.

If you would do the research, you would realize that Bush has done more to fund and encourage alternative energy R&D than any previous administration.

Originally posted by FredT
That may be so, but............

He has ignored the issue of global warming, he has pushed the issue of corn based ethanol which lets face it is at best chasing our tail for now. And while the dollar figures for research and energy efficency may have gone up, the eprcentage has actually dropped.

Your liberal stance is showing once again. Global warming is still a very debatable issue. And Bush has not ignored the issue. He merely refuses to fall in lockstep with your viewpoint.

If he were on ATS, he would be accused of spewing "ignorant rhetoric" and told that he was "wasting his time here".

Originally posted by FredT

I really think you have to take a balanced approach from both sides

Why? So I can appear more agreeable with your unbalanced approach?

No, FredT, I think you need to round out your liberal viewpoint.

reply to post by jsobecky


What Fred is saying, JSO, is that you blindly support Bush exactly in the manner you accuse people like us of supporting "liberals"

Except...we dont blindly support them. We know they are corrupt. We know they are vile. Just like Bush.


You need to take it unbalanced and realize BUSH is just as bad as those "waskally wiblewals" (think Elmer Fudd) that you so despise.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Oh, i've done my research. More than you are willing to admit. And my information comes from the source, not from Rush or Hannity

FredT already beat me to the punch:
Bush's money comes from side deals, and you're blisfully blind to this fact if you choose to ignore it. It happens for every president, not just bush.

OK, let's see who is right: you and FredT or me.

Let's see how good your "research" is....

Show me proof that Bush is making money from side deals.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Your blind support of Bush is admirable, if only from an entertainment standpoint

Listen, I've criticized Bush plenty of times. Not that I have to defend myself to you, mind you; I couldn't care less what you think.

But it seems like you employ the typical ignorant liberal thinking: if someone says anything positive about the administration, they are are accused of having blind support for Bush. Then you throw in Rush and Hannity. Don't forget to refer to FAUX News and hint at fascism.:shk:

Such tactics are the mark of groupthink. I think for myself, not a popular stance on ATS.

Maybe you're afraid of being unpopular if you go against the herd? Don't worry - they are easy enough to defeat one-on-one. Like a lion killing an antelope. They only stick around when they use gang tactics.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by jsobecky

 

What Fred is saying, JSO, is that you blindly support Bush exactly in the manner you accuse people like us of supporting "liberals"

Except...we dont blindly support them. We know they are corrupt. We know they are vile. Just like Bush.


You need to take it unbalanced and realize BUSH is just as bad as those "waskally wiblewals" (think Elmer Fudd) that you so despise.

Read my previous post about my support for Bush.

I don't blindly support him. But that's not really what bothers you or FredT or any other lib about me..

What bothers you guys is that I don't allow your ignorant rhetoric to go unchallenged. You make outrageous bullcrap statements about everything from criminality to collusion, and if someone challenges your BS, you immediately label them as a "blind supporter".

The fat that you guys are afraid to say anything positive about Bush is very telling.

My advice to you and the rest of the Bush-haters: don't make it so easy for people to challenge you. You can do that by thinking before you make outrageous claims.

The word that makes liberals shiver (or take a temper tantrum): PROOF.

Originally posted by jsobecky


OK, let's see who is right: you and FredT or me.

Neither.

This is exactly my point.

You're saying "PRAISE BUSH PRAISE BUSH Down with the Democrats!"

essentially

Its not about "are you right or am i right"

Its about "Bush is a politician, therefore he is wrong"

Not a single politician has had it right since George Washington. He is, still to this day, the only president who refused to belong to a single political party.

The factioning of ideas in the best interests of the politician is what outweighs what is best for those they "represent"

The fat that you guys are afraid to say anything positive about Bush is very telling.

I call it like i see it.
Saying "well bush sucks, but he did save my daughters kitty from the tree" is like saying "i love spaghetti, even if you put 7 pounds of feces right on top of it"

Keep your feces. I'll pass thanks


[edit on 7/17/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by jsobecky


OK, let's see who is right: you and FredT or me.

Neither.

This is exactly my point.

You're saying "PRAISE BUSH PRAISE BUSH Down with the Democrats!"

NO, I AM NOT SAYING THAT.

You made an allegation that Bush makes money on "side deals".

I said "Prove it".

Don't try to twist it. Your attempt at defelection is obvious, as well as your attempt to avoid answering my challenge.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Its not about "are you right or am i right"

Its about "Bush is a politician, therefore he is wrong"

"All politicians are wrong".

Now there is an example of close-minded thinking, ladies and gents.

The fat that you guys are afraid to say anything positive about Bush is very telling.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
I call it like i see it.
Saying "well bush sucks, but he did save my daughters kitty from the tree" is like saying "i love spaghetti, even if you put 7 pounds of feces right on top of it"

Keep your feces. I'll pass thanks


[edit on 7/17/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Thank you for confirming my suspicion: you guys are afraid to say anything positive about Bush.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by jsobecky]

I must be missing something here.When I first started driving a gallon of gas cost about $.27.Do a bit of research and you will find that three mercury dimes
(silver)will buy one gallon of gas.Therefore I don't blame Bush for oil prices.Instead I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the federal reserve bank that has devaluated the dollar to the extent that so far we are paying $4+
a gallon.If we need to place blame then we need to take a look at Woodrow Wilson,his congress,and the judical branch in power during his administration.
Once you figure our how banking elite have robbed the people of this country
use some common sence and you'll see that much of our problems can be traced to the federal reserve bank and fiat money.Bush is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the corporations that use him.Liberal,conservitive make no difference anymore.While Bush slants things for Lockeed Martin Obama will slant them for Boeing.The only thing that changes is the corporation that gets the handout for the next few years.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by
deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the
banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children
wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing
power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to
whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert
Gallatin (1802)

Originally posted by semperfortis
While it is often difficult to look past the hype and political correctness many seem enamored with, in order to get to the truth, one at times must make the effort.

You’ve seen the signs and heard all the protests blaming blaming Bush, Cheney, evil oil companies and Republicans for high gas prices but the real cause of rising gas prices and the faltering U.S. economy are liberals. Liberal agenda’s against refineries, oil exploration and drilling and Democratic votes in congress have taken America out of the oil production business and put it in the oil brokerage business.

What was intended to be a television commercial for why big oil is bad turned out to be a lesson in world economics for anyone who cared to watch it. Consider some of the following statements made at the hearing.

John Lowe, Executive Vice President of Conoco/Phillips:
Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world’s available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon Senior Vice President -Exxon Mobil
With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

The average price of gas last year was near $2.80. Approximately 58% percent of that was the direct cost of crude oil. 17% went to federal, state and local taxes, 4% represents oil company profits. That figure is relatively unchanged from the previous decade.

Laugh At Liberals

We get so caught up in blaming one man for all of our troubles; I mean it is vastly more convenient, it just isn't true. At least not to anyone that has the "gumption" to look past all the hype and into the truth.

It is far easier to place blame on the "BIG BAD OIL COMPANIES" and not on ourselves for electing incompetent liberal boobs that really don't care how much we pay for gas as long as we drive less and it looks bad on the sitting Republican President.

The ultimate goal is of course the defeat of all things "Capitalist" and everything "Conservative" and the Liberals really don't care how much they hurt you and me in their process.

Semper

Thats funny Semper I disagree whole heartedly,,, the conservative remnants are actively blocking any legislation on the gas issue...I had posted on this with a couple of voting records on various bills,,, the source is USGOV very capitalist...

I believe the strategy IS trying to make the dems look bad at any and all cost... Maybe we are both being played...

Either way I believe this just as strongly as you believe your theory.

I will go so far as to say I believe the price of crude with drop a fair amount before the elections in 99 days... So Mccain can be as competitive as possible dispell the mental link between high gas and republicans...

Also I see you sight laugh at liberals...,,, I remember the CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS-- do you remember this? Well I sure do,,, my whole state does.

That stunk of the same smell as this gas gouging. In fact the blaming the liberal logic was off the charts on that one very similar to the sources you have cited your post.

Well that smell was the stench of friends of the republican president just to remind you!


So if we both have proof... both can point to motive... how can anyone determine the TRUTH any more??? I guess truth is in the eye of the beholder!



Unfortunately Senator Obama was elsewhere and Mccain voted NAY - (Shame on both)


Official: A bill to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
Short: Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act as introduced.
Short: NOPEC as introduced.
Short: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2008 as introduced.
Short: Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 as introduced.

This BILL had 0 AMENDMENTS

I will provide a link to the votes -

www.senate.gov...

May I add if there was nothing hide why not go forward with the legislation. If the
citizen is the main concern????

Please at least review the link!





[edit on 28-7-2008 by mental modulator]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by jsobecky


It is not necessary to have control of Congress to stifle legislation, or even consideration of a proposal. Witness the way the Dems squashed any discussion of Social Security reform several years ago. That is just one example.

And thank all the Gods and a few extra that they did. Can you imagine, for a moment, what sort of mess we would be setting this country up for if we allowed "individuals" to invest their own money in the stock market?

Individuals who do not have the knowledge, or the insider information, to make the stock market work for them?

I saw that as an attempt to open the Social Security purse to opportunists in the financial sector, so that that large sum of money could be bled off into private pockets. And NOT the pockets of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled that that money is intended to support.

If many average Americans are unable to make sound financial decisions regarding their home loans, credit cards, etc., why on earth would it make good sense to hand them their "last hope" the safety net, to invest and manage when we KNOW there are those who prey off the foolish in the markets? We KNOW there is insider trading, surely you dont think Old Ms. Johnson down the street can compete with that?

I know there are many financially astute conservatives who feel they COULD do better if they had control of their own social security money. That they could make a better retirement for themselves. Good for them. MY idea of reform would be that if you didnt NEED social security, you wouldnt get it at all. Open your own retirement account and do what you will with it, dont complain that you cant get your hands on money that technically isnt yours. I have been unemployed, I have never collected unemployment. Why? I had the money in the bank to make it through. Those programs are for those who, for whatever reason, can not manage on their own. If you can swing your retirement on your own, working magic in the markets, then do so. It isnt hard. You dont need liberals to tell you what to do with YOUR money, but social security isnt YOUR money. It was paid into a program, a tax, in the event you or others should ever need it.

Yes, Social Security was originally poorly thought out and structured. Yes, it is unfair to those of us who pay high rates and will likely not ever be able to collect should WE need it. However, of all the monies I pay into programs, I would by far rather pay to support my countrymen and women that have contributed to this country by their own efforts than to bail out irresponsible corporations, fight wars that make only contractors and corporations rich, and provide lavish travel and living accommodations for politicians and their little friends.

Like others have pointed out, we are not in this crisis after many years of Democratic rule, but of Republican leadership. We arent in the grips of an "oil crisis" because we have limited offshore drilling, or the plundering of the Alaska wilderness. We are in this position because we squandered the time and resources that could have been used to promote alternative energy development, because auto makers were encouraged to keep pumping out monstrous gas guzzlers, and the oil industry (rather than alternative energy producers) has been the main recipient of public dollars.

I dont mind if people have their own stand on "liberal vs conservative." Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would like to see more actual support for the idea that "liberals" are the ones who have created this mess single handedly, however. I am of the mindset that both parties are incompetent to do the right thing for this country, because both are too busy feeding at the corporate trough to make the decisions that would be good for American as a sovereign nation, and her people.

Edit to add;

Most conservatives wouldnt know a capitalist if they bit them on the butt.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by jsobecky
He is not omnipotent. He can propose, but it is up to Congress to legislate. As a matter of fact, he has been proposing steps all during his entire tenure, but they have almost all been squashed by the Dems to further their agenda.

Yes! And they are furthering their agenda by scaring the masses of stupid people that vote for them via global warming/climate change.


[guote]If you would do the research, you would realize that Bush has done more to fund and encourage alternative energy R&D than any previous administration. His problem is, he doesn't blow his horn, like the typical politician, so the general public is unaware of his efforts.

Right! So now I must ask: what did liberals do to advance alternative energy technologies during the 8 years they had the White House prior to GWB? They did absolutely nothing! Nothing at all!

Flag and star, just for bringing this up in a good context.

Since fuel prices affect my company directly, and the economy which in turn affects our customer, I have been paying colse attention the last several months to oil and fuel prices. This is what I have concluded:

The value of our dollar is dropping, fast. The simple reason is that it is no longer backed by anything tangible. Fort Knox is so empty you can hear an echo inside it. Not one sinlge crumb of gold or silver is left. Look at the dollar bill in your pocket; it says, boldly across the top, "Federal Reserve Note". They didn't used to say that; I have seen plenty of dollars in my youth that said "Silver Certificate". The latter means you can carry the certificate to any US Treasury office and exchange it for a specified amount of silver. The former means it is not redeemable for anything more than paying 'debts' (purchases) in the United States.

The United States is in a terrible debt crisis, and I am not referring to the mortgage crisis. Bush just signed into law a raise to the federal debt ceiling of $800,000,000,000 ($800 BILLION), making our maximum debt almost ten TRILLION dollars ($10,000,000,000,000)! And don't just blame Bush, as it was the Democratic-controlled Congress who passed it. We are so far in debt it is highly unlikely that we will be able to pay the interest on it soon, without raising taxes so high it will make economic survival impossible. Other countries are not dumb; they see this and are shaking their heads in amazement. They are also starting to think our dollars aren't worth the waste of ink to print them, so it's taking more dollars to buy things.

That means that a barrel of oil can be the same price internationally, but much more expensive here. You can't really blame the sheiks for wanting more dollars for their oil; they don't care about green paper, only what it can buy. And as each dollar buys less, they want more for their oil, to make up the difference.

Secondly, and I can pretty much blame Bush for this one, although the Congress is conspicuously assisting with their silence, we are allowing speculation to run rampant. The price on the futures market is no longer being determined by how much the oil is worth, but by how much oil futures will be worth. A single barrel of crude can be bought and sold tens of times before ever seeing a refinery, and each transaction makes it a bit more expensive. It's an economic bubble, just like housing, gold, the dot-coms of yesteryear... and it will eventually burst just like they did. the problem is that the price of energy affects every single aspect of our economy. More reason to worry about the value of a dollar, wouldn't everyone say? If we regulated speculation on energy futures, we would see an almost immediate price decrease. In fact, we have already seen a small one, and Congress just introduced a bill for that very purpose (more on that in a moment).

Thirdly, the tax breaks we give to the oil companies are not aimed at keeping domestic energy prices down. No effort was made in the tax codes we now have to insure that one single drop of refined fuel stays in our country.

Fourth, the ethanol situation is simply a big joke. It would take more corn to make the ethanol now being proposed as mandatory in the future by Bush than we can grow in the entire country. That leaves how much for food? Yet, we have those tax breaks again, geared at producing more ethanol for fuel, a large percentage of which is being shipped to other countries aided by the tax breaks.

Fifth, we need refineries. Oil is black messy gunk without them, and we are steadily decreasing our refinery capacity by allowing older refineries to be closed without replacing them with new ones. The problem here is the environmental movement. They have not approved a refinery since approval was made necessary, but they are certainly more than happy to accept multiple millions of dollars for an 'environmental impact study' which almost certainly explains why the proposed refinery cannot be built. That would be like a person having to buy property and pay double the cost of the property to some agency before they could even find out if they could build a house on it. It has to be the most preposterous thing I have heard to date (well, outside of Global Warming).

Sixth, we will need our own oil reserves in the future, and we have plenty of oil for ourselves for the foreseeable future. The problem is twofold: we won't allow drilling in the coastal waters and ANWAR, and the oil companies don't seem to want to drill where they can. Actually, it would be more appropriate that they don't want to pump; there are untold oil wells capped off right now, full of oil and staying that way. Don't ask me why, because I truly do not know.

Seventh, we could ease the problem mid-term by building more alternate energy electrical plants. Nuclear is good, coal is good, heck, anything that makes juice from what we already have is good.

Fuel prices are back down a bit right now (gasoline was $3.559 on the way home), since Congress introduced a bill to regulate speculation. This bill has just died in Congress (according to the radio news today), so watch fuel start back up. Then tell me it speculation has nothing to do with it.

TheRedneck

Your brand of conservatism makes me sick. There is a war against liberals and you are trying to vilify your american brothers and sisters just because we have differing opinions.