If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Bush says increasing supply is the solution to high gas prices, mentions nothing of decreasing demand. Omission Accomplished   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 200
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

559 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2008 at 5:01 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-05 07:17:25 PM
Rovian: What is the Bush plan for the falling value of the dollar?

The plan was to decrease the value of the dollar to in turn reverse the trade deficit. Unfortunately, massive government deficits outpaced any such reductions. Not to mention the fact that the subsequent increases in commodity prices don't work the same, as say, clothes, that we can manufacture here in the US. When oil prices rise, we still buy just as much from abroad - running up the account deficit even further.
 
2008-05-05 07:19:02 PM
canyoneer: worldwide conspiracy to keep production low

*cough*OPEC*cough*
 
2008-05-05 07:21:14 PM
Shaggy_C: *cough*OPEC*cough*

And speaking of OPEC, I see Hillary just threatened to 'end it'. How exactly does she plan to do that?
 
2008-05-05 07:31:30 PM
Shaggy_C: Shaggy_C: *cough*OPEC*cough*

And speaking of OPEC, I see Hillary just threatened to 'end it'. How exactly does she plan to do that?


She's going to envelope it in her flying squirrel-like vagina and smother it. Then, after a few hours, spit out the bones.
 
2008-05-05 07:46:08 PM
Shaggy

The plan was to decrease the value of the dollar to in turn reverse the trade deficit. Unfortunately, massive government deficits outpaced any such reductions. Not to mention the fact that the subsequent increases in commodity prices don't work the same, as say, clothes, that we can manufacture here in the US. When oil prices rise, we still buy just as much from abroad - running up the account deficit even further.

Brilliant! We can shove this off to the next generation. Its your problem now suckers. ha hahahahahaaahah! Screw the kids.
 
2008-05-05 08:04:27 PM
Galen_Rasputin: vernonFL: Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.

It would take 3 years or more for that oil to get to the market. This will do nothing in the short term.

There really aren't any short term solutions other than increasing supply and reducing demand. Its easy to say 'build more refineries' but they wouldn't be up and running for years.

There is one short term solution, conservation. If everyone would slow down and drive 45 on the highway and 25 in the city that would reduce consumption by increasing your miles per gallon and drive the price of gasoline down. No politician is serious about conservation though, if they were they would be advocateing the re-institution of a 55 mph speed limit or even a 45 mph speed limit. I think they should go further then that and require a speed governer on all new cars that limited them to those speeds.


Yes, lets slow down all cars, let truck drivers take an extra 25% to get places helping our economy even more, you know what lets make it 5 MPH and fark cars everyone ride tricycles. the farking oil industry has us buy the balls and they know it, they control the money, the economy and the politicians, here is a solution: cut military funding in half, stop retarded ass conflicts, and spend that money on coming up with more efficient ways of travel. Hell I don't give a fark if the economy is sluggish and we're in a deficit, as long as the government is actually doing shiat about it and trying to come up with better alternatives to the BS we have now.
 
2008-05-05 08:06:04 PM
tomasso: At $120 per barrel, the oil companies are paying $2.86 per gallon for raw crude. On the average, state and local taxes are $.65 per gallon. Refining and transportation are fairly costly. In other words, given the cost structure, gas would average $3.50 a gallon even if the oil companies made no profit at all.

You od understand that the major oil companies have an upstream business. That is how they post record profits when the price of oil goes up.

/ The more you know
 
2008-05-05 08:07:17 PM
Bag of Hammers Shaggy_C: Shaggy_C: *cough*OPEC*cough*
And speaking of OPEC, I see Hillary just threatened to 'end it'. How exactly does she plan to do that?

She's going to envelope it in her flying squirrel-like vagina and smother it. Then, after a few hours, spit out the bones.


At first I was going to comment on just how scary Hillary really is but now, this may be something I'd like to see
 
2008-05-05 08:09:48 PM
ablank: 1) Short term oil supply is fixed.
2) Long term oil supply is limited. There are a few places where new fields could be discovered/tapped, but many of those will be expensive to extract. Unless there is long term, predicable price stability at higher per barrel prices these will be risky at best.
3) ANWR fields are big, but small relative to the global oil supply. Drilling in ANWR will not affect the wholesale price of oil.


Cool! Everyone's an expert on the petroleum industry because some guy on the internet said something and now they repeat it. God Bless Fark.
 
2008-05-05 08:16:10 PM
Corpus Delecti: vernonFL:
Its easy to say 'build more refineries' but they wouldn't be up and running for years.

Uhhh, why? I keep hearing this "they wouldn't be up and running for years" horseshiat, but nobody ever bothers to explain WHY they believe that building an Oil Refinery is a multi-year project. A Refinery isn't exactly a moonbase, and it's not like they have to build them one at a time. We could easily build several dozen of them in the next two months, were we so inclined.


Dude if you can build a commercial scale refinery in a couple of months, hell a couple of years, I'll kiss your ass and find the financing the whole way, all you'll have to do is get out your welding gear and dig in.

It takes 2 weeks to retool an existing factory to go from winter to summer blends, you think you can build one from sctratch in only 8 weeks?

You can't even get the government to send you the forms to file for permits in 8 weeks.

I heard on the news an oil industry analyst explain it best this weekend, no way in hell would a rational business man build a refinery in America right now. Aside from the NIMBY junk, you'll still spend years getting expensive materials put together by expensive labor so that the price of that good will go down, in a market where the government has a stated goal of cutting your profits to nill in 10 years. In India they're building the worlds largest refineries because they know that Asia is hungry for growth and not worried about hybrids.

Here in America we have an even stranger problem to all that. We're trying to launch plug in hybrids to reduce our use of oil. But we're also making it much harder to build power plants of any kind. So we're going to trade oil for electric cars, only to have our AC's and furnaces shut down due to lack of capacity in the grid..
 
2008-05-05 08:23:26 PM
Doesn't Bush make a statement about not being dependant on oil at least once or twice a month in an election year?
 
2008-05-05 08:39:34 PM
Sorry subby. The problem is supply. The president can't control the demand side from China and other countries.

There is plenty of oil out there, especially in domestic production. We can't keep the price low if we are not allowed to access it and refine it efficiently, or if we're worried that some dumb animal might be hurt or the sky might not be as pristine as we imagine it was in some century BC.

Taxing oil companies will only curtail domestic oil supply and place even greater control in the hands of OPEC, not to mention the speculators on the futures market.

This is reality, and not the unicorns and bunnies scenario painted by naive liberals.
 
2008-05-05 08:41:03 PM
waxy: There is plenty of oil out there, especially in domestic production. We can't keep the price low if we are not allowed to access it and refine it efficiently

What law prevents new refineries from being built?
 
2008-05-05 08:49:23 PM
Churchill2004: Sleeping Monkey: Don't confuse selfishness with freedom and individual liberty.

Freedom to pursue your self-interest, however you define it, in whatever manner you see fit is the very definition of individual liberty.


www.chaaban.info
Would like a word with you...
 
2008-05-05 08:51:18 PM
alpharendering.com
 
2008-05-05 08:57:53 PM
Galen_Rasputin: I think they should go further then that and require a speed governer on all new cars that limited them to those speeds.

and america thinks you can eat a bowl of dicks.
 
2008-05-05 08:59:49 PM
poot_rootbeer: To be fair, he's been tossing that tidbit into his speeches for five years now, and has yet to effect any policy change that would actually cause the nation's energy needs to be diversified away from oil.

god forbid you be truly fair to the man for ONE EFFIN' DAY. you jackasses have done nothing but undermine him since a year before he was even inaugurated.
 
2008-05-05 09:20:11 PM
captain_napalm: god forbid you be truly fair to the man for ONE EFFIN' DAY. you jackasses have done nothing but undermine him since a year before he was even inaugurated.

www.bbc.co.uk
 
2008-05-05 09:23:59 PM
so the answer to running out of something
is to get more of it?

GOOD THINKIN'
 
2008-05-05 09:39:20 PM
wolvernova: igotnothing: And the crash of the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with high gas prices.....nope, not at all....move along, citizen.

Something amazingly ignored by every left-wing environut. The solution is not in curbing our demand by some 20%, or whatever impossible and inconsequential amount we try to target. As mentioned above, India and China are becoming rapidly larger consumers of the black stuff.


Actually it's being ignored by EVERYONE, from the left-wing environuts in the white house to the left-wing environuts at Fox News. WTF?
 
2008-05-05 09:49:50 PM
Diogenes: "We'll analyze some of these suggestions, but the key is that we think long-term for America, that we diversify away from oil and we're wise and build new refineries and increase supply for the American consumers," Bush said in the interview on the White House grounds with his wife, Laura.

To be fair, he did toss that tidbit in.

Yet somehow I think he's more on the "increasing supply" side than the "render oil moot" side.

Awash in oil and oblivious to the fact that some day the faucet will be turned off.


It's a pretty bad omission, but what alternatives do we have right now? Oil is the miracle fuel and there's nothing that can compete with it as of yet. You can't really be on the "render oil moot" side in the short term. We have to try to use as little as we can, boost supplies and search like crazy for better alternatives. Didn't I read something on here a while back about a solution involving laser magnesium? Where's that biatch?
 
2008-05-05 10:03:27 PM
Has anyone else noticed that with their limited brainpower republicans are only ever able to come up with the same stupid ideas over and over again?



www.hno.harvard.edu




philip9876.files.wordpress.com
 
2008-05-05 10:46:55 PM
Since there IS more supply more or less immediately available (new refineries, drill Alaska, etc.), and there is NO practical way to reduce demand near term.....turns out he's right this time.
 
2008-05-05 10:48:45 PM
cchris_39: Since there IS more supply more or less immediately available (new refineries, drill Alaska, etc.)

What law is there preventing the construction of new refineries?
 
2008-05-05 11:14:03 PM
Rovian: Has anyone else noticed that with their limited brainpower republicans are only ever able to come up with the same stupid ideas over and over again?

Has anyone else noticed that with their limited brainpower democrats are only ever able to come up with the same stupid ideas over and over again?

Like the FACT that nuclear power is the most efficient power available, but they are so AFRAID of nuclear war that they will limit it? Even though there is NO proof of such (three mile island, unradioactive, just a precaution, chernobyl, was poor planning in an attempt to impress the dictator). Or, the old defense "Our enemies could attack it", as if we should do EVERYTHING anticipating that our enemies might attack it. Only democrats could block nearly ALL possible sources of energy, and still biatch about the oil prices. Oil isn't only used in cars, its also used in rubber products, as well as plastic products, of course democrats only live in this dreamland where everything is perfect and happy, and choose to ignore the real world.

//Realist first and foremost
///Libertarian
 
2008-05-05 11:21:03 PM
This just in: Bush says the solution to me not having a solid gold toilet is to give me a solid gold toilet.

Canyoneer What does that graph prove? That energy is cheap, and at past prices, people have been willing to use more and more of it? Suppose it cost $10 to run your blender for two minutes? You'd skip that milkshake, wouldn't you?

The truly funny thing about the free market, is conservatives complaining when it doesn't do what they want. You want cheaper energy? I'm sure it's out there somewhere! Go get it chopper! You want to drill on public land? Don't be surprised when the public opposes it!

Meanwhile, the people who've got the energy, want $4 a gallon. Either pay it or don't.
 
2008-05-05 11:21:59 PM
Jesuswas

but they are so AFRAID of nuclear war that they will limit it?

I don't think thats the reason. I think it has more to do with no one wanting one in their backyard, combined with the problem of not knowing what to do with the waste. Nuclear power isn't emission free as the president assertively lied in his (thank god) last state of the union speech. Here in Nebraska we just settled a lawsuit with the feds because we didn't want them burying the stuff over our aquifer.

I know perfectly well that oil is the primary source of (cancer causing) polymers for our disposable crap fest, it doesn't take away from the problems of its continued high usage.
 
2008-05-05 11:30:47 PM
we have plenty ways to dispose of it and contain it, granted, burying it in a mountain may not be the best option, but lets hear of one from the democrat side that would be more effeciant? Good luck...
 
2008-05-05 11:37:49 PM
Im not aware of any laws preventing the construction of new nuclear plants. But if that were true, and the waste didn't stay hot for several hundred years, the market would likely be building them. Which isn't to say that there aren't other sources of power altogether. The solution will need to come from a variety of sources, wind, solar, geothermal, clean coal technology, cellulosic biofuels, hydrogen, maybe even fusion power if we commit to developing it.
 
2008-05-05 11:39:22 PM
Increasing supply will lower the cost, particularly if we are the ones increasing the supply and we can tell OPEC to go to hell.

You're not going to decrease demand.

Liberals have been in the way of progress on energy independence and particularly exploration of energy resources for decades now. When you fill up your tank at 3.60-4.00 a gallon be sure to remember: You are paying that because a particular group of people have done everything in their power to stamp out domestic oil production.
 
2008-05-05 11:43:40 PM
randomjsa

The reason we get out oil from the mid east is because Saudi Arabia has 25% of all known quantities. The myth of domestic production and digging up ANWR for a years worth of oil isn't a viable solution, its time the right recognized that.

Funny how theres no conserve in conservative.
 
2008-05-05 11:49:15 PM
Um yes, there are laws that prevent building new nuclear power plants, the farked up thing is, there are laws preventing building new nuclear power plants to replace the old out of code ones... so the ones that ARE dangerous, cannot be replaced, because liberals dont like them. So your solution is create something different? Just create cold fusion? I tell you what, you just go create cold fusion and ill give in. Hell, Ill even go promote it for you, nevermind that BILLIONS of dollars have been given to it to and yet it has not been developed.

As for wind and solar, do you have any idea the amount of land that would take up 2/3 of the space of said city would. Clean coal? Pssssssssh, coal emits more toxins that gasoline...

Us, the taxpayers have spent a hell of a lot of money on Yucca mountain, and its waste containment facility, its more than apt for holding radioactive waste for generations to come. And the waste is not like an atomic bomb, if you sent off TNT next to it, its not going to be another hiroshima.

Why dont you come up with something we have available TODAY that is EFFECIANT as nuclear power, and then you can comment with your pseudocondesinding tone. Until then, either let technology develop, or keep paying people like me, who have plenty of stock in oil wells (thats right, I make money off OIL, and I would rather see a more effeciant power such as NUCLEAR power take over).
 
2008-05-05 11:50:48 PM
Rovian: randomjsa

The reason we get out oil from the mid east is because Saudi Arabia has 25% of all known quantities. The myth of domestic production and digging up ANWR for a years worth of oil isn't a viable solution, its time the right recognized that.

Funny how theres no conserve in conservative.


We would have more than enough oil if we were allowed to drill in Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc, and a plethora of other places, if these damn liberals stopped complaining about their views being ubstructed.
 
2008-05-05 11:53:02 PM
JesusWasALiberalJew:
We would have more than enough oil if we were allowed to drill in Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc, and a plethora of other places, if these damn liberals stopped complaining about their views being ubstructed.


You really have no idea how oil prices are set, do you?
 
2008-05-05 11:55:26 PM
AFart_Machine: JesusWasALiberalJew:
We would have more than enough oil if we were allowed to drill in Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc, and a plethora of other places, if these damn liberals stopped complaining about their views being ubstructed.

You really have no idea how oil prices are set, do you?


Acctually I do, if you would bother to read up, im in the middle of it, but frankly, what makes you feel your an expert?
 
2008-05-06 12:02:07 AM
JesusWasALiberalJew:
Acctually I do, if you would bother to read up, im in the middle of it, but frankly, what makes you feel your an expert?


Because even if we were to drill in every state it wouldn't be enough to offset the current major suppliers of oil which is set on a global scale. The price wouldn't change.

Unless you plan on nationalizing our oil prices, that is.
 
2008-05-06 12:03:33 AM
Do you know what competition is? Price gouging is illegal btw. If more oil hits the market, there will be more supply and less demand, lowering the price... basic economics.
 
2008-05-06 12:11:27 AM
JesusWasALiberalJew: Do you know what competition is? Price gouging is illegal btw. If more oil hits the market, there will be more supply and less demand, lowering the price... basic economics.

Do you understand that what we can contribute to the supply is a drop in the bucket compared to our foreign competition? That even when our foreign consumption was only a fraction of what it is now, OPEC staggered the price with their embargo back in '73. Oil prices are set on a global level. We don't produce enough to satisfy the demand of our own country let alone the world so it doesn't have much impact on the market.

And you've done nothing to address demand by more drilling. That is set on consumers and the corporate sector finding domestic alternatives to petroleum.
 
2008-05-06 12:16:47 AM
Adding more to the supply WOULD infact affect global economy. While I dont support government setting the price, export tarrifs could be set to ensure our nation has enough oil to sustain it until the foreseeable future when something better comes along. More drilling = more oil = more supply = less demand = CHEAPER PRICES.

But its ok, I really never like arguing with people like you anymore. I mean hell, if it weren't for ignorant libs who didnt want drills touching down else where, leaving our main oil supply in Oklahoma and W.Texas... I wouldn't have had the best economic years of my young life. So preach on hippie, and buy me another fur coat.
 
2008-05-06 12:25:49 AM
gee, I guess suburban sprawl wasn't the best idea.

-find a way to run public transportation better
- work on the train system
-get used to walking/bike riding. We're overweight anyway.
 
2008-05-06 12:29:39 AM
JesusWasALiberalJew: Adding more to the supply WOULD infact affect global economy. While I dont support government setting the price, export tarrifs could be set to ensure our nation has enough oil to sustain it until the foreseeable future when something better comes along. More drilling = more oil = more supply = less demand = CHEAPER PRICES.

You would have to add enough to offset what is being produced by our main competition overseas. That isn't going to happen and even at the best estimates we don't produce enough to satisfy our own consumption. Once again, you've done nothing to address demand.

But its ok, I really never like arguing with people like you anymore. I mean hell, if it weren't for ignorant libs who didnt want drills touching down else where, leaving our main oil supply in Oklahoma and W.Texas... I wouldn't have had the best economic years of my young life. So preach on hippie, and buy me another fur coat.

Ok, so you're a troll then. Hurry up with my fries kid.
 
2008-05-06 01:02:35 AM
OMISSION ACCOMPLISHED


Love it!
 
2008-05-06 01:22:52 AM
Two words: nationalize it

/Dirty Commie Pinko Liberal
 
2008-05-06 01:44:04 AM
We need to worship the sun again. Cost effective Solar Power is within our grasp in the next 10 years if we will just make investments now into R&D. You comibine solar powered homes/businesses with improved plug in hybrid cars and you get a better enviroment, lower energy costs, reduced dependency on oil.
 
2008-05-06 07:04:39 AM
Supply is relative to demand. If you increase supply you are inherently decreasing demand on that supply. Pointing it out is redundant.

Pushing down on the left side of a see-saw will make the right side rise. It doesn't need to be pointed out that you are deliberately raising the right side - this is already the logical effect of pushing down on the left side.

I'm no fan of Bush, but it seems the people who like to point out how dumb he is usually aren't much smarter themselves. -1, Subby fails.

Still, this is a worthless endeavor for the long-term. Supply would need to be increased by an amount large enough to cover 100% of India and China's rapidly increasing demands for it to have any chance of lowering fuel prices.
 
2008-05-06 10:23:59 AM
randomjsa
jesuswasA



what some of you still don't get, or refuse to accept is that there isn't enough domestic oil to make even a small dent in our consumption.
 
2008-05-06 11:09:07 AM
Shaggy_C: cchris_39: Since there IS more supply more or less immediately available (new refineries, drill Alaska, etc.)

What law is there preventing the construction of new refineries?


EPA regulations make it impossible to build new refineries. Even the existing refineries cannot be upgraded because any change would take them from grandfathered status and bring them under the new restrictions. Thus, many have become obsolete and shut down rather than deal with the EPA.

This is how the greenies are the useful idiots of Big Oil, and help them keep their profits rollin' in.
 
2008-05-06 11:15:31 AM
"Bush says increasing supply is the solution to high gas prices, mentions nothing of decreasing demand."

Ummm yeah that's because gas hitting $4.50 per gallon will take care of the decreasing demand issue.
 
2008-05-06 11:30:10 AM
Rovian: randomjsa
jesuswasA


what some of you still don't get, or refuse to accept is that there isn't enough domestic oil to make even a small dent in our consumption.


This. This. This!

By all means though, keep clinging to your B-B-B-But Hippies! defense.
 
2008-05-06 01:36:10 PM
We use 400 MILLION gallons a day... that's about 8 million barrels a day... you'd need some SERIOUS supplies to even make a dent.

You could:
-Increase the mpg of cars... oh wait, you denied that.
-You could promote alternative energies... oh wait, you cut the funding for that.
-You could get out of Iraq to ease debt and restore value to the dollar... oh wait, you vetoed that.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report