[O'Reilly Factor] President Obama, you and gas prices

[Ubiquitous]

Driving in from the L.A. airport yesterday I saw gas signs that said
$4.50 a gallon... $4.50. All across the country we are now paying the
highest gas prices at this time of year ever. But President Obama has
said little about it. That's very strange because the President's main
focus has been on helping working Americans and redistributing income to
those who don't have very much.

Well, what we're really doing now is redistributing money to the oil
companies. Right? The President gives working Americans a payroll cut
tax. But, instead of the extra income going into the bank, it goes into
the gas tank. What's really happening here is that working Americans and
the poor are getting hosed at the pump. And because of that, their
economic position is weaker.

Rich people it doesn't matter to them. So why is this happening? Well,
Lou Dobbs says there is plenty of gas and oil in America. The record warm
winter means reserves are way up. But to make bigger profits, the oil
companies are sending their refined products overseas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOU DOBBS, FOX BUSINESS NEWS HOST: Primarily jet fuels, diesel and
gasoline which normally would be in abundance right now.

O'REILLY: Yes.

DOBBS: Is being shipped overseas. We are now part of a world market.,
like it or not. And the fact of the matter is we are competing with
demand in China, in Europe, and primarily in Latin America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: So let's be very clear. There is plenty of oil in the USA.
Prices should not be at record levels. But they are because the oil
companies are sending their products overseas to make more money.

And what is the federal government doing about that? Zero, nothing. Nada.
Remember, the oil companies are heavily regulated. They can't operate
without government approval. In fact, under the Obama Administration oil
drilling in the ocean and land leased to oil companies have been
drastically cut back.

Apparently the President doesn't want oil companies to have an easier
time. That's why he killed the Canadian oil pipeline. But even if that
pipeline were built, the oil flow generated from Canada would most likely
wind up overseas.

So we, the people, are caught in a crossfire. The Obama administration
wants the price of oil to go up as high as possible so that Americans
demand alternative energy, electric cars and things like that, And the
oil companies know they can make more money in China so they send the
stuff over there and at the same time they raise the price at the pump
here.

It's outrageous. We're getting hammered. From both the government and the
oil companies.

It's my job to tell you the truth. Right now we are all being taken
advantage of by an administration that has an anti-fossil fuel agenda and
an oil industry that manipulates the U.S. market. Who is looking out for
us? Nobody.

And that's "The Memo."

--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On Feb 21, 5:15 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> Driving in from the L.A. airport yesterday I saw gas signs that said
> $4.50 a gallon... $4.50. All across the country we are now paying the
> highest gas prices at this time of year ever. But President Obama has
> said little about it. That's very strange because the President's main
> focus has been on helping working Americans and redistributing income to
> those who don't have very much.
>
> Well, what we're really doing now is redistributing money to the oil
> companies. Right? The President gives working Americans a payroll cut
> tax. But, instead of the extra income going into the bank, it goes into
> the gas tank. What's really happening here is that working Americans and
> the poor are getting hosed at the pump. And because of that, their
> economic position is weaker.

If Americans didn't depend on so much of it then it wouldn't be that
big of a problem would it? But that would take planning for the
future and there are a lot of people in fear of the guvment doing
just that; they say it should all be left up to the individual. At
least
that is what they say when things are going their way.
So they would say: "No one put a gun to your head and made
you buy it".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/21/2012 8:26 AM, maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:15 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> Driving in from the L.A. airport yesterday I saw gas signs that said
>> $4.50 a gallon... $4.50. All across the country we are now paying the
>> highest gas prices at this time of year ever. But President Obama has
>> said little about it. That's very strange because the President's main
>> focus has been on helping working Americans and redistributing income to
>> those who don't have very much.

Well, that "has" been his main lie.


Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare. He
uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
Canadian oil pipeline, he'll tell you that the rich need to pay
more..... mean while all the costs of the little guy have doubled.


Obama's Socialism is like a street entertainer, he uses of the art of
misdirection. Obama has you(the stupid people) looking at one hand that
is doing nothing while he is truly doing something with the other.


If you want to see what Obama is really doing, turn him off never listen
to the Democrats or the Left or the government. Instead go about your
daily life and you'll see what is in Obama's hand that is actually doing
something.


NOTHING IS BETTER OR CHEAPER.


NO MORE JOBS THAN WHEN HE SHOWED UP.


PRICES FOR FOOD AND ENERGY ARE HIGHER.


VALUE OF YOUR DOLLAR IS LOWER.



NOW TURN ON YOUR TV AND LISTEN TO OBAMA'S MISDIRECTION.


--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare. He
> uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
> Canadian oil pipeline,

Why is it you are so keen on having the Federal govt seize
land from private landowners to build this pipeline?

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On Feb 21, 9:33 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> On 2/21/2012 8:26 AM, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 5:15 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> Driving in from the L.A. airport yesterday I saw gas signs that said
> >> $4.50 a gallon... $4.50. All across the country we are now paying the
> >> highest gas prices at this time of year ever. But President Obama has
> >> said little about it. That's very strange because the President's main
> >> focus has been on helping working Americans and redistributing income to
> >> those who don't have very much.
>
> Well, that "has" been his main lie.
>
> Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare.  He
> uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
> Canadian oil pipeline, he'll tell you that the rich need to pay
> more.....

Oh yeah he says that but has it happened?

> mean while all the costs of the little guy have doubled.

Right, that oil just blew past that $150 mark, and you
are right home prices are double what they were
in 2008.

> Obama's Socialism is like a street entertainer, he uses of the art of
> misdirection.  Obama has you(the stupid people) looking at one hand that
> is doing nothing while he is truly doing something with the other.
>
> If you want to see what Obama is really doing, turn him off never listen
> to the Democrats or the Left or the government.  Instead go about your
> daily life and you'll see what is in Obama's hand that is actually doing
> something.

I look on the bright side and he's done a marvelous job
of getting that stock market back up to where it was
in 2008. I know the rich people have to love him.

>
> NOTHING IS BETTER OR CHEAPER.
>
> NO MORE JOBS THAN WHEN HE SHOWED UP.
>
> PRICES FOR FOOD AND ENERGY ARE HIGHER.
>
> VALUE OF YOUR DOLLAR IS LOWER.
>
> NOW TURN ON YOUR TV AND LISTEN TO OBAMA'S MISDIRECTION.

I have often wondered why airplanes sometimes fly
into mountains.

[Mason Barge]

The same reason he's keen on the government seizing land for public parks,
roads, hospitals, schools and air force bases?

- Mason


"Let no man pull you low enough to hate him."
~ Martin Luther King

[Joan in GB-W]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:boydneVfLbG1KN7S...@bright.net...

Without checking the figures - the USA already gets half or more of its oil
from Canada. Add that to what we get from Mexico and most of our supply
comes from North America.

Joan

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Why did you have the government build INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS?


And Oil from our Neighbors means less shipping and less wasted fuel.


Also it means that when Iran does what it just did and stops or
threatens to stop oil shipments then the USA has less to lose.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/21/2012 10:23 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:15:45 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare. He
>>> uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
>>> Canadian oil pipeline,
>>
>> Why is it you are so keen on having the Federal govt seize
>> land from private landowners to build this pipeline?
>
> The same reason he's keen on the government seizing land for public parks,
> roads, hospitals, schools and air force bases?
>
> - Mason

And seizing coal and oil and NAT GAS and CAR COMPANIES and all of
anything he wants to seize.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

:
>> On 2/21/2012 8:26 AM, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:

>
> I look on the bright side and he's done a marvelous job
> of getting that stock market back up to where it was
> in 2008. I know the rich people have to love him.

But it's 2012 and that puts the stock market at a 4 year loss of growth
doesn't it?


How long has Obama been a President?


The stock market should be at 2008 plus 4 years of reasonable growth or
14,000 plus 8% for 4 years.

The stock market should be around 19,000 and yet it's NOT.

Obama should have created JOBS yet there are NO jobs.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Seize an Interstate that will be useless without oil to feed the rest of
the Nation....

We don't need interstate highways that badly with gas costing $5-$10 a
gallon.

[Thanatos]

In article <boydneVfLbG1KN7S...@bright.net>,

They wouldn't just seize it. They'd have to pay the landowners for it.

And it would actually be a refreshingly appropriate use of the
government's power of eminent domain-- a taking that actually serves a
public purpose.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> And seizing coal and oil and NAT GAS and CAR COMPANIES and all of
> anything he wants to seize.
>

You're the one that wants the land seized.
You are the one objecting to it not being seized.
Why is that?

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> :
> >> On 2/21/2012 8:26 AM, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I look on the bright side and he's done a marvelous job
> > of getting that stock market back up to where it was
> > in 2008. I know the rich people have to love him.
>
> But it's 2012 and that puts the stock market at a 4 year loss of growth
> doesn't it?
>
> How long has Obama been a President?
>
> The stock market should be at 2008 plus 4 years of reasonable growth or
> 14,000 plus 8% for 4 years.
>
> The stock market should be around 19,000 and yet it's NOT.

By that reasoning gasoline should be $6/gal. and
a $200K house should have gained another $100K.

But they're not because the excessive borrowing that was
driving that level of inflation has come to an end.

[jim]

What is the public purpose?
How did the accelerated consumption
of petroleum become public purpose?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The part objected to was the part that the government already owns, you
fool.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 2/21/2012 12:40 PM, jim wrote:
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And seizing coal and oil and NAT GAS and CAR COMPANIES and all of
> >> anything he wants to seize.
> >>
> >
> > You're the one that wants the land seized.
> > You are the one objecting to it not being seized.
> > Why is that?
>
> The part objected to was the part that the government already owns,

We are not even talking about the govt owning the land.
The govt forces the land to be sold to the pipeline company.

Why are you in favor of that?

[Nickname unavailable]

On Feb 21, 4:15 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:


i doubt the idiot will do anything, but who knows:What do you think
the price of oil would be today if it were based on the fundamentals
of supply and demand?:If you were to use a pure economic approach it
would be set at the price to be somewhere in the $60-70 range

however, we do know that bush did nothing to arrest the price of oil.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/oil-prices_b_1289662.html?ref=business


Paul Abrams
Last person on Earth not on Facebook



Without Congress, President Obama Can Provide a "Tax Cut" That Really
Will Spur Economic Growth
Posted: 02/20/2012 7:51 pm



Oil prices are rising. That is like a tax hike on the American people
with the money going to oil company and speculators' coffers. That
"tax increase" does nothing to spur economic growth such as building
roads and bridges or investing in our children's education.
A large part of that increase is due to speculation on the futures
market.
What is that?
Futures markets trade contracts to purchase a commodity, like oil, at
a future date.
The futures markets were originally designed to enable producers and
consumers to smooth the price of commodities so they would not be
subject to seasonal (for agricultural products) or other supply
variations. The expectation was that a purchaser of a futures contract
would usually take delivery on the due date.
Those markets changed as futures contracts became used as vehicles for
speculative profit-taking. Using mortgages for the same purpose was a
much more recent phenomenon, and caused the economic meltdown.
Oil futures contracts entered that same realm some time ago. However,
oil futures were not regulated. Today, only about 30% of the oil
futures contract holders actually take delivery. The remaining 70%
take their gains or losses from their speculative play.
In hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee on May 12, 2011, Rex
Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil estimated that the price per barrel
of oil would be about $60-70, i.e., a 30% reduction in oil prices.
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA): "What do you think the price would be
today if it were based on the fundamentals of supply and demand?"

Rex Tillerson (CEO, ExxonMobil): "If you were to use a pure economic
approach, the economist would say it would be set at the price to
develop the next marginal barrel... it's going to be somewhere in the
$60-70 range".
President Obama can call upon the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, headed by his appointee, Gary Gensler, to regulate the oil
futures markets. If Rex Tillerson is correct, and he is about as well-
positioned to know as anyone, that should reduce oil, and thus
gasoline, prices substantially.
Instead of the difference going to Goldman Sachs's bonus pool, the
reduction in oil and gasoline prices would have a stimulatory effect
on the economy. Any products that used oil would see their costs
reduced, either improving profits and/or reducing costs to consumers,
making our businesses more competitive.
Reduced price-at-the-pump would put more money in consumers' pockets
and decrease the burdens on working families who spend a higher
percentage of their incomes on fuel -- heating oil and transportation
-- than do the 1%.
Reducing speculative bubbles in the oil market is even more important
than ending subsidies to oil companies.
Goldman Sachs and their fellow travelers will squawk.
Who cares?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

There is already land with railroads on them and the rail could be next
to a buried oil pipe. New life for troubles rail systems. There are
interstate systems and State and Federal lands to cross that will NOT
require any seizing of property.

[cloud dreamer]

On 21/02/2012 1:38 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> :
>>> On 2/21/2012 8:26 AM, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I look on the bright side and he's done a marvelous job
>> of getting that stock market back up to where it was
>> in 2008. I know the rich people have to love him.
>
>
> But it's 2012 and that puts the stock market at a 4 year loss of growth
> doesn't it?
>
>
> How long has Obama been a President?
>
>
> The stock market should be at 2008 plus 4 years of reasonable growth or
> 14,000 plus 8% for 4 years.
>
> The stock market should be around 19,000 and yet it's NOT.
>
> Obama should have created JOBS yet there are NO jobs.

The economy didn't start in 2008. It decline drastically from 07 to 09
thanks to Bush mismanagement and two useless wars. You can't recover
from a 6% decline (under Bush) overnight. It takes years.

If McCain had been elected, you'd be in a Depression now.

Funny how you don't want to consider that.

..


--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us

[Bill Steele]

Probably he owns energy industry stock.

[Bill Steele]

And the market is inherently cautious.

[Bill Steele]

Or we could regulate the markup system. If a gas station uses a 10%
markup, a p;rice increase raises profit without any increase in any
other coist of doing business, for the gas station, the rifineer, the
transporter -- everyone but the crude oil supplier. Set the markupat a
fixed dollar amount and you vastly c curb the rate of price increase at
the pump.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

We "are" in a depression and McCain would have followed the same path
since he's a Progressive also.... there would be little difference and
Yes I agree that Depression was going to happen with any but a serious
TEA PARTY TYPE or LIBERTARIAN that would unleash the economy by cutting
regulation and spending/taxing.

ALL spending by government is a tax since it will have to be paid by
taxpayers eventually...

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:11:56 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 2/21/2012 12:22 PM, Thanatos wrote:
>> In article <boydneVfLbG1KN7S...@bright.net>,
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare. He
>>>> uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
>>>> Canadian oil pipeline,
>>>
>>> Why is it you are so keen on having the Federal govt seize
>>> land from private landowners to build this pipeline?
>>
>> They wouldn't just seize it. They'd have to pay the landowners for it.
>>
>> And it would actually be a refreshingly appropriate use of the
>> government's power of eminent domain-- a taking that actually serves a
>> public purpose.
>
>
>There is already land with railroads on them and the rail could be next
>to a buried oil pipe. New life for troubles rail systems. There are
>interstate systems and State and Federal lands to cross that will NOT
>require any seizing of property.

I think they need the highways for cars to travel on.

[Thanatos]

In article <Cuydnbg3_KWxR97S...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
> >
> > In article <boydneVfLbG1KN7S...@bright.net>,
> > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> >
> > > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare. He
> > > > uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
> > > > Canadian oil pipeline,
> > >
> > > Why is it you are so keen on having the Federal govt seize
> > > land from private landowners to build this pipeline?
> >
> > They wouldn't just seize it. They'd have to pay the landowners for it.
> >
> > And it would actually be a refreshingly appropriate use of the
> > government's power of eminent domain-- a taking that actually serves a
> > public purpose.
>
> What is the public purpose?

If you can't see that, then you're too stupid to live.

[Michael OConnor]

The Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist are rigging the price of
gasoline.

[Bill Steele]

If we don't ask the question, we don't deserve to live in a democracy.

[Bill Steele]

Visit Chicago. Notice the rail lines in between the freeway lanes.

But the pipeline dispute isn't about rights of way. It's about bringing
in horrendously polluting tar sands.

[Bill Steele]

On 2/21/12 5:15 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
> The Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist are rigging the price of
> gasoline.

Just them? You might at least mention the Arabs.

[jim]

If you had an answer to that question you would probably give it
Apparently you don't have an answer. At least not one that
would stand up to scrutiny.

[Thanatos]

In article <VuednSDah9VL2tjS...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
> >
> > In article <Cuydnbg3_KWxR97S...@bright.net>,
> > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanatos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <boydneVfLbG1KN7S...@bright.net>,
> > > > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obama distracts from the real problems by creating class warfare.
> > > > > > He
> > > > > > uses hate to hide his inept Presidency and things like halting the
> > > > > > Canadian oil pipeline,
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it you are so keen on having the Federal govt seize
> > > > > land from private landowners to build this pipeline?
> > > >
> > > > They wouldn't just seize it. They'd have to pay the landowners for it.
> > > >
> > > > And it would actually be a refreshingly appropriate use of the
> > > > government's power of eminent domain-- a taking that actually serves a
> > > > public purpose.
> > >
> > > What is the public purpose?
> >
> > If you can't see that, then you're too stupid to live.
>
> If you had an answer to that question you would probably give it

No, I don't tend to answer idiotic and pedantic questions that are only
asked out of either abject ignorance or as part of some agenda.

[jim]

Thanatos wrote:


> > > >
> > > > What is the public purpose?
> > >
> > > If you can't see that, then you're too stupid to live.
> >
> > If you had an answer to that question you would probably give it
>
> No, I don't tend to answer idiotic and pedantic questions that are only
> asked out of either abject ignorance or as part of some agenda.

No agenda. I just have trouble understanding why it is so
important to consume oil as fast as possible.

The government can issue as much money as it deems necessary
whenever it deems it necessary at practically no cost.
And yet many worry that it will be used up and won't be
available for future generations.

OTOH, petroleum is finite and the less that is left the more
costly and difficult it becomes to extract and yet the same
people seem to be in a race to get it all out of the ground
quickly.

[Thanatos]

In article <qvydncn2rJV1KdjS...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the public purpose?
> > > >
> > > > If you can't see that, then you're too stupid to live.
> > >
> > > If you had an answer to that question you would probably give it
> >
> > No, I don't tend to answer idiotic and pedantic questions that are only
> > asked out of either abject ignorance or as part of some agenda.
>
> No agenda. I just have trouble understanding why it is so
> important to consume oil as fast as possible.

Which of course no one ever claimed was the goal.

Behold the strawman.

> OTOH, petroleum is finite and the less that is left the more
> costly and difficult it becomes to extract and yet the same
> people seem to be in a race to get it all out of the ground
> quickly.

Well, you oughta be all in favor of that. The faster it's gone, the
faster we'll all be forced to live in huts and read by candlelight or
whatever other greenie utopia you've envisioned.

[jim]

Thanatos wrote:
>
> In article <qvydncn2rJV1KdjS...@bright.net>,
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the public purpose?
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can't see that, then you're too stupid to live.
> > > >
> > > > If you had an answer to that question you would probably give it
> > >
> > > No, I don't tend to answer idiotic and pedantic questions that are only
> > > asked out of either abject ignorance or as part of some agenda.
> >
> > No agenda. I just have trouble understanding why it is so
> > important to consume oil as fast as possible.
>
> Which of course no one ever claimed was the goal.

Well that's a strawman argument

I never said it was your goal.
You seem to be reluctant to explain what you think is
the goal.

Using it up quickly is the obvious effect of bending over
backwards to accommodate the production and consumption
of petroleum. Had more effort been made to conserve and limit
the use of petroleum starting 50 years ago, half the oil
that has been consumed could still be in the ground.
That would mean it would not be as costly today and
the economy would have by now adapted to performing
well while using less. The only one to benefit has been
the oil producers. They don't care how fast it is used up,
because no matter how little is left they make the same
amount of profit.

> > OTOH, petroleum is finite and the less that is left the more
> > costly and difficult it becomes to extract and yet the same
> > people seem to be in a race to get it all out of the ground
> > quickly.
>
> Well, you oughta be all in favor of that. The faster it's gone, the
> faster we'll all be forced to live in huts and read by candlelight or
> whatever other greenie utopia you've envisioned.

This is apparently is your vision of the future.
It is profoundly
stupid to use oil for lighting and yet that is exactly how
the the US used up a good part of its oil reserves.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> Thanatos wrote:
>>
>> In article <qvydncn2rJV1KdjS...@bright.net>,
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanatos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the public purpose?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't see that, then you're too stupid to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had an answer to that question you would probably give it
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't tend to answer idiotic and pedantic questions that are only
>>>> asked out of either abject ignorance or as part of some agenda.
>>>
>>> No agenda. I just have trouble understanding why it is so
>>> important to consume oil as fast as possible.
>>
>> Which of course no one ever claimed was the goal.
>
> Well that's a strawman argument
>
> I never said it was your goal.
> You seem to be reluctant to explain what you think is
> the goal.
>
> Using it up quickly is the obvious effect of bending over
> backwards to accommodate the production and consumption
> of petroleum.

Yet the goal seems to be to slow the use of oil by driving up the price.

Might I suggest that our economy is production and when we have no
energy we don't produce.... So the damper on the economy is the
restricted oil and other energy. Why does Obama want to slow the
economy and put people out of work? What is the Socialist goal?

> Had more effort been made to conserve and limit
> the use of petroleum starting 50 years ago, half the oil
> that has been consumed could still be in the ground.

And that would make a difference how? Oil in the ground can't be
extracted without Obama trying to stifle the use of it, at least with
necessarily high carbon prices and carbon taxes.

> That would mean it would not be as costly today and
> the economy would have by now adapted to performing
> well while using less.

That sounds like a Norman Rockwell painting.... "the Perfect America"

> The only one to benefit has been
> the oil producers.

Bull... All Americans benefited. It's how we got to the moon and
created the desk top computer, it's called progress.
Why would we wait for you and government to decide it's time for
something to be done.

> They don't care how fast it is used up,
> because no matter how little is left they make the same
> amount of profit.

Well then you need to start an oil company don't you.

[Thanatos]

In article <yJidnU5K2u761tvS...@bright.net>,

Woulda coulda shoulda. Pining away for what should have happened half a
century ago is a ridiculous waste of time.

Good luck with that, but the rest of us want to deal with the situation
as it exists now, not what might have been.

> > > OTOH, petroleum is finite and the less that is left the more
> > > costly and difficult it becomes to extract and yet the same
> > > people seem to be in a race to get it all out of the ground
> > > quickly.
> >
> > Well, you oughta be all in favor of that. The faster it's gone, the
> > faster we'll all be forced to live in huts and read by candlelight or
> > whatever other greenie utopia you've envisioned.
>
> This is apparently is your vision of the future.

Yeah, right. Good one, Einstein.

[Dano]

"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
news:Dks1r.124263$rV3....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

========================================

What an incredibly stupid and thoughtless conclusion to come to. That's no
surprise to anyone who reads your bullshit and cynical opinions.

What I don't understand is how morons like you are happy getting raped twice
by these opportunistic oil dealers...then whine about the "gubmint" being
unkind and unfair to them. Decades of sweetheart tax deals...even outright
government assistance...has made them some of THE most successful (read
profitable) corporations in the history of the world. Yet it's somehow not
enough. And by the way...no amount of further drilling and production is
going to help lower prices as long as that oil enters the WORLD market. You
think somehow...out of the goodness of their corporate hearts...they will
ONLY sell to Americans? Because if not...they will sell at the greatest
possible profit. And we are far from a point where demand...worldwide...is
going to lessen. So where should we EVER expect the price to go?

Production in the US is higher than under Bush. Why then have prices
skyrocketed? Ever consider that while you piss and moan about Obama? As
long as demand increases...and unrest in the middle east threatens a goodly
portion of the supply...so will prices. It's that simple stupid.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

So the damper on the economy is the
> restricted oil and other energy.

This is a restriction the economy imposed on itself.
Had oil been used less wastefully in the past it would
be more freely available today.

>
> > Had more effort been made to conserve and limit
> > the use of petroleum starting 50 years ago, half the oil
> > that has been consumed could still be in the ground.
>
> And that would make a difference how? Oil in the ground can't be
> extracted without Obama trying to stifle the use of it, at least with
> necessarily high carbon prices and carbon taxes.

The limited supply in the ground today has nothing
to do with Obama
There are 1000's of US wells that are outputting
much less today due to the large amount pumped
in the past.

> > The only one to benefit has been
> > the oil producers.
>
> Bull... All Americans benefited.

not when it was used wastefully, which most of it was.

[jim]

Thanatos wrote:

>
> Woulda coulda shoulda. Pining away for what should have happened half a
> century ago is a ridiculous waste of time.

What shoulda happened 80 years ago still should be done today.

>
> Good luck with that, but the rest of us want to deal with the situation
> as it exists now, not what might have been.

You can't even answer the simplest question
about dealing with the situation today.

[Dano]

"jim" wrote in message news:kKGdnc1Mg6cp99vS...@bright.net...

====================================

This idiot would prefer to repeat history.

[Thanatos]

In article <kKGdnc1Mg6cp99vS...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
>
> >
> > Woulda coulda shoulda. Pining away for what should have happened half a
> > century ago is a ridiculous waste of time.
>
> What shoulda happened 80 years ago still should be done today.

Not without imposing dictatorial restrictions on the citizens. The
people still nominally run this country and they're not going to accept
"limitations on their use of petroleum". So in order to accomplish it,
you'd have to defy the will of the people and impose it on them anyway.

>
> >
> > Good luck with that, but the rest of us want to deal with the situation
> > as it exists now, not what might have been.
>
> You can't even answer the simplest question
> about dealing with the situation today.

You're problem is that's all you ask: simple questions.

[Thanatos]

In article <ji5q5h$55s$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

If it means having the government out of the business of deciding for
everyone how much petroleum they're allowed to use, as "jim" suggested,
then yeah, that's a history worth repeating.

[jim]

Thanatos wrote:
>
> In article <kKGdnc1Mg6cp99vS...@bright.net>,
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanatos wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Woulda coulda shoulda. Pining away for what should have happened half a
> > > century ago is a ridiculous waste of time.
> >
> > What shoulda happened 80 years ago still should be done today.
>
> Not without imposing dictatorial restrictions on the citizens. The
> people still nominally run this country and they're not going to accept
> "limitations on their use of petroleum". So in order to accomplish it,
> you'd have to defy the will of the people and impose it on them anyway.

The will of the people can change and should
have changed 80 years ago.

[jim]

Thanatos wrote:

>
> If it means having the government out of the business of deciding for
> everyone how much petroleum they're allowed to use, as "jim" suggested,

You try to blame others for what you suggested.

[Thanatos]

In article <x-OdnTmcl8abZ9vS...@bright.net>,

But it's not going to. People like their cars.

Live in your fantasy world all you want, if it makes you happy.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Feb 21, 4:15 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

commodities are being severely manipulated by wealthy parasites:total
outstanding oil contracts for next-month delivery of 1,000 barrels of
oil stood near an all-time high:Speculators who'll never take delivery
of oil made up 64% of the market

hey all of you brown nosed conservative wealth worshipers, here's to
your $5.00 a gallon of gas. enjoy it. the wealthy are so under taxed,
that they can throw hundreds of billions of dollars at a market, and
completely manipulate it, to the point where they can crash the
economy.

http://www.truthout.org/once-again-speculators-behind-sharply-rising-oil-and-gasoline-prices/1329920984

Once Again, Speculators Behind Sharply Rising Oil and Gasoline Prices
Wednesday 22 February 2012
by: Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers | Report


Washington - U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including
gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States
has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all
that it makes.
Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging.
On Tuesday, oil rose past $106 a barrel and gasoline averaged $3.57 a
gallon — thanks again in no small part to rampant financial
speculation on top of fears of supply disruptions.
The ostensible reason for the climb of crude prices on the New York
Mercantile Exchange, where contracts for future delivery of oil are
traded, is growing fear of a military confrontation with Iran in the
Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the
world's oil passes.

Other factors driving up prices include last month's bankruptcy of
Petroplus, a big European refiner, and a recent BP refinery fire in
Washington state that's temporarily crimped gasoline supply along the
West Coast; gas now costs an average of $4.04 a gallon in California.
While tension over Iran has ratcheted up over the last few months, the
price of oil and gasoline has leaped far beyond conventional supply
and demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the
market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices.
"Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate
the two anymore. There is no demarcation," said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year
veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "I still
remain convinced oil prices are inflated."
Consider that light, sweet crude trading on the NYMEX changed hands at
$79.20 a barrel just four months ago, but soared past $106 a barrel
Tuesday afternoon, partly on news that Iran would halt shipment of oil
to Britain and France. But those countries already had stopped buying
Iranian oil. And Didier Houssin, the International Energy Agency's
director for energy markets and security, said that "there are
alternative supplies that can make up for any loss of Iranian
exports," The Wall Street Journal reported.
Still, oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets,
where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the
trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking
possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading.
Since oil prices are the biggest component in the price of gasoline,
pump prices are soaring. AAA said Tuesday that the nationwide average
price for a gallon of gasoline stood at $3.57, compared with $3.38 a
month ago and $3.17 a year ago. It takes about $6 more to fill up the
tank than it did this time last year — and last year's gasoline-price
surge helped take the steam out of the economic recovery.
Defining what percentage of today's high oil and gasoline prices is
due to excessive speculation, driven by Iran fears, is something of a
guessing game.
"I put the Iran security premium at about $8 to $10 (a barrel) at this
point, which still puts crude at about $90 or $95," said John Kilduff,
a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.
The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears
of a supply disruption_ somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel
of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from
Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand
fundamentals would dictate.
Why? Financial speculators.
What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and
demand market fundamentals? Canada's the largest supplier of imported
oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half
of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of
oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost
for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets
the prices.
"It's as simple as that," said Gheit, who has testified before
Congress and called for regulatory limits on speculation in
commodities markets.
Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of
oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made
up about 70 percent. Today it's almost the reverse.
A McClatchy review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil trading,
shows that producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all
contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14.
That same week, open interest, or the total outstanding oil contracts
for next-month delivery of 1,000 barrels of oil (about 42,000
gallons), stood near an all-time high above 1.486 million. Speculators
who'll never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.
Not surprisingly, big Wall Street traders on Tuesday projected oil
will rise above $112 a barrel; some such as Swiss giant Vitol even
suggested $150-a-barrel oil is coming soon. When they dominate the
market, as they do, speculators' bids can make their prophecies self-
fulfilling.
"These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make
money. It's our fault because we are allowing them to do that," said
Gheit. "Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial
lobby is the strongest of any single lobby. I've been in this business
30 years, and I can tell you I think this is smoke and mirrors."
What's indisputable is that oil and gasoline are not in short supply,
and that demand remains weak. That was crystal clear in the latest
weekly energy market update by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration_ published last week for the week ending Feb. 10.
"Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged
18.3 million barrels per day, down by 4.6 percent compared to the
similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline
product supplied has averaged nearly 8.1 million barrels per day, down
by 6.4 percent from the same period last year," said the EIA, the
statistical arm of the Energy Department.
Inventories of stored oil are also unusually high, the EIA said.
"At 339.1 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the upper
limit of the average range for this time of year," the agency said.
"Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 0.4 million barrels
last week and are in the upper limit of the average range."
Hence, no shortage to explain soaring prices.
In fact, U.S. demand and consumption patterns are so abnormal compared
to recent decades that oil and gasoline are both now being exported to
Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Exports of U.S. refined product averaged 2.928 million barrels per day
over the four weeks ending on Feb. 10, compared to 2.190 million bpd
for the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, the EIA said. This category
is primarily gasoline, but it includes unfinished oils, fuel
additives, ethanol and other blending components.
Similarly, the United States did not export any oil in the four weeks
ending Feb. 11, 2011, but in the four-week period ending this Feb. 10,
we exported 37,000 barrels.
The export picture suggests that when domestic demand rises, American
motorists might be competing with drivers elsewhere for U.S.-made
gasoline, which fetches a higher price as an export.
"To the extent that there is this export market that wasn't there
before, it is certainly ... keeping prices higher than they otherwise
would be," said Kilduff. "Exports were not material. Now they are
becoming material."
The White House sought to deflect criticism about rising oil and
gasoline prices. Spokesman Jay Carney blamed the prices on "a variety
of factors on the global price of oil. They include unrest in certain
regions of the world, they include growth in areas like China and
India."
Another popular explanation for rising oil prices Tuesday was trader
relief that Greece received another bailout payment from Europe. That
heightened hopes of a boost in oil demand in Europe as its economy
recovers, given that a crisis has been avoided for now.
That explanation doesn't add up.
Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S.
economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said
that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices.
Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem —
upward — contradicting last year's justification.
East Coast refiners have seen their profit margins squeezed because
they import Brent crude oil from Europe, which has traded at least $10
above crude coming out of the U.S. Gulf region.
Consolidation in the refining sector is another new wrinkle weighing
on the oil and gasoline markets. The EIA, in a separate publication
called This Week in Petroleum, warned last week that refinery closures
in the U.S. Northeast and in some Caribbean countries could crimp
supplies along the U.S. East Coast. Refinery closures and strained
distribution could drive up gasoline prices on the East Coast until
industry players make necessary infrastructure adjustments.
"On paper, refining capacity in the more competitive Gulf Coast and
Midwest hubs appears more than adequate to make up for lost East Coast
refining capacity. But the Colonial pipeline, which connects Gulf
Coast refineries to the Central Atlantic, is already running near
capacity levels, so bringing incremental Gulf Coast product volumes to
East Coast markets could be a challenge," the EIA said.
(Lesley Clark of the Washington Bureau contributed.)

[trotsky]

Oh, he'll answer it, but the answer will have at least three straw man
arguments.