Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With gasoline currently above $3 per gallon nationwide and economists expecting that price to rise even further in 2011, America should be getting serious about producing more of its own resources. But instead of focusing on how to bring more relief to American motorists, President Obama has imposed massive new regulations, restrictions, and even threatened higher taxes on American energy, all of which negatively impact domestic production.

What follows is a list of the five most egregious actions on the part of the Obama administration that have contributed to higher gasoline prices and greater dependence on foreign dictators for our energy:

Cancelling existing permits: Immediately after taking office in 2009, President Obama's handpicked Secretary of the Department of Interior, Ken Salazar, canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah. The fact that this was one of the administration's first regulatory decisions meant that American energy companies were immediately concerned about their ability to produce oil and gas in the future, injecting a level of uncertainty into the market that moves the country away from job creation and economic recovery. One year later, the administration canceled 61 more leases, this time in Montana, as part of President Obama's war on global warming.

Needlessly delaying offshore leasing: Not long after Ken Salazar canceled the Utah leases, he decided to extend for another six months the public comment period for new offshore drilling. As allowed by law, the public had already been given 45 days to comment on the federal government's pending lease sale to offshore energy producers, after which time the administration would begin developing plans for new leasing. But the Obama administration was so opposed to oil and gas drilling that it wanted to drag the process out further, which meant offshore producers would have to wait even longer before they could start drilling. This was in addition to the 25 years that no drilling was allowed for most of the Outer Continental Shelf due to a congressional moratorium that ended in 2008. Adding insult to injury is that the additional public comments for which the White House asked actually supported expanding offshore drilling by a two-to-one margin, a fact that the administration deliberately kept hidden from the American people. Put simply, the Obama administration did not want any additional offshore drilling, and the fact that the public overwhelmingly opposed them wasn't going to stop them from pursuing their ideological goal.

Pushing for more taxes on American energy: When the Pelosi-led House of Representatives passed its massive cap and trade energy tax, the Obama administration celebrated. After all, it was then-candidate Barack Obama who happily declared that under his plan of cap and trade, energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket." Although his target was primarily the coal industry (which suffered badly in 2010 under President Obama's watch), imposing a tax on carbon dioxide would also heavily impact oil and natural gas production. In fact, there was a new gasoline tax in the most recent cap and trade bill in the Senate, legislation President Obama helped negotiate and would have happily signed had both chambers of Congress passed it. A study from Harvard University found that a carbon cap that was less stringent than what Congress was considering could send gasoline prices soaring to $7 per gallon. When all efforts to pass cap and trade legislatively failed miserably, Obama ignored the message -- that Americans strongly oppose new energy taxes -- and moved instead to impose a carbon cap administratively through the EPA. Such regulation targets all sectors of the economy, including transportation and oil production and refining, which ultimately means higher gasoline prices at the pump.

Imposing a moratorium on oil and gas drilling: Immediately after the Gulf oil spill began in April 2010, the White House began soliciting input from drilling experts in the National Academy of Engineering as to what the proper response should be. The Obama administration then imposed a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling, claiming that the experts they consulted had advised them to take such an action. Except they hadn't. The experts stated publicly that they never supported such a moratorium, and that the White House had manipulated their opinions and expertise solely to advance a political agenda. Because the administration had no basis for its ban, two federal courts stated on three separate occasions that the moratorium was unjust. The Obama administration ignored the experts and the courts and kept the ban in place; Salazar said that lifting the moratorium would make him "uncomfortable." Such a decision ultimately led drillers to relocate their rigs (and hundreds or even thousands of good paying jobs) to other parts of the world, and the long-term impact on domestic production will no doubt be devastating for consumers.

Issuing a new offshore drilling ban: Within weeks of announcing that the moratorium had come to an end, the White House announced a new executive ban on offshore drilling, a ban that is almost identical to what was in place until 2008 when gasoline prices began their climb past $4 per gallon. Amid mounting grassroots opposition to that ban -- led by American Solutions' 1.5 million-member "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" effort -- then-President Bush lifted the executive ban in July 2008, and Congress ended its own quarter-century long legislative ban a few months later, after which gasoline prices plummeted. But President Obama completely ignored that lesson (and the pain consumers felt) and has set the stage for a repeat of the 2008 gasoline crisis by trying his hand at imposing his own ban. Meanwhile, in the few areas where the White House approves drilling, the administration has completely halted new permitting, a de facto moratorium in and of itself. All told, the Energy Information Administration projects that offshore oil production will decline in 2011 by about 220,000 barrels per day (before the Obama administration's bans, the EIA had actually predicted an increase in production for 2011.)

Why has President Obama led the charge to restrict American energy? The answer is elusive, and it's anyone's guess what his administration will do (if anything) to fight for lower gasoline prices. But if past statements from him and his administration are any indication, the U.S. could be stuck (absent major legislative and regulatory changes) with prohibitively high gasoline prices: Then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail in 2008 that he doesn't object to high oil prices as long as they come about gradually, and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once famously said he hoped the U.S. would "boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," where prices are currently about $7 per gallon.

http://www.americansolutions.com/dr...s-obama-has-done-to-raise-gasoline-prices.php
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
WTF losing ground on the other post so you try a different one to throw us off??
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
WTF losing ground on the other post so you try a different one to throw us off??
Where did I lose ground? :laughing: Your lack of reading and comprehension skills, doesn't constitute me losing ground..

And this is a different article.. I know it is very hard for you, but you gotta understand the differences in the context of the articles..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
Where did I lose ground? :laughing: Your lack of reading and comprehension skills, doesn't constitute me losing ground..

And this is a different article.. I know it is very hard for you, but you gotta understand the differences in the context of the articles..
these 5 things deal with the AFCESA law same as the other post.. and i can't conprehend your article because the WSJ doesn't carry it anymore...

and the diffferences are mute-- all blasting Obama for upholding the law and enforcing what congress wanted.. got it..

And we'll hit high gas prices not because of taxes-- we'll hit them because of global demand increases.

and if off shore drilling is so vital where was Bush for the first 8 years of his tenure?? oh thats right he didn't drop the moratorium until his tenure was over according to your post above.. and he's backed by big oil.. so I ask if it's so vital-- wouldn't you think big oil would want it the first 8 years???
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
these 5 things deal with the AFCESA law same as the other post.. and i can't conprehend your article because the WSJ doesn't carry it anymore...
It's there, yahoo just cleaned it off their links..

and the diffferences are mute-- all blasting Obama for upholding the law and enforcing what congress wanted.. got it..
Congress, the democratic congress, the same one that has took us from a good economy to a great depression in 4 short years.. I know they wanted it, because I know what they are all about. They don't try and mask it..

And we'll hit high gas prices not because of taxes-- we'll hit them because of global demand increases.
I know this won't compute, but the key to balancing demand and supply is to increase the supply side.. genius thinking, I know, but I at I am sharing it with you..

and if off shore drilling is so vital where was Bush for the first 8 years of his tenure?? oh thats right he didn't drop the moratorium until his tenure was over according to your post above.. and he's backed by big oil.. so I ask if it's so vital-- wouldn't you think big oil would want it the first 8 years???
Bush & Obama aren't that different.. nationally, neither party has been very distinguishable for the last 60 or so years.. because they are both owned and controlled by the same people.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
It's there, yahoo just cleaned it off their links..



Congress, the democratic congress, the same one that has took us from a good economy to a great depression in 4 short years.. I know they wanted it, because I know what they are all about. They don't try and mask it..



I know this won't compute, but the key to balancing demand and supply is to increase the supply side.. genius thinking, I know, but I at I am sharing it with you..



Bush & Obama aren't that different.. nationally, neither party has been very distinguishable for the last 60 or so years.. because they are both owned and controlled by the same people.
You can't blame the world wide econimic downturn on our congress.

if supply is the issue and profits are to be had-- then why are OPEC, and south American oil producers cutting back supply.. so this isn't just about oil drilling in the gulf-- there are thousands of other taps already drilled to be used first-- one or two more rigs in the gulf won't put a ripple in the oil supply.

And yes many of our leaders are similar on that we agree.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
You can't blame the world wide econimic downturn on our congress.
You can't, but I can. I know what their policies do, we are all living it now. Your congress didn't take the blame for anything. Nancy was gonna drain the swamp, all she did was fill it with crocodiles. The most transparent admin in history, it very opaque, the hopey changing thing is working out like **** for the people in the US.. you can't blame them for their policies and politics, but I can/

if supply is the issue and profits are to be had-- then why are OPEC, and south American oil producers cutting back supply.. so this isn't just about oil drilling in the gulf-- there are thousands of other taps already drilled to be used first-- one or two more rigs in the gulf won't put a ripple in the oil supply.
Seriously? :laughing: My 11 year old can answer this for you..

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
I guess some will always complain about something.. instead of getting off their ass and fixing it.

and for the recording I did vote for Obama but i voted for republicans for congress and senate.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I guess some will always complain about something.. instead of getting off their ass and fixing it.
Yep, and you guys create problems, where there aren't any, then create a fix, that is about 1.7 million times bigger than your fake problem. :rolleyes:

and for the recording I did vote for Obama but i voted for republicans for congress and senate.
Yeah right, your a liberal to the bone..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,300 Posts
Bush & Obama aren't that different.. nationally, neither party has been very distinguishable for the last 60 or so years.. because they are both owned and controlled by the same people.
Very True:down:

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Just out of curiosity... how are these utter and completely different ideologies -the same ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Just out of curiosity... how are these utter and completely different ideologies -the same ?
At the national level, they are the same. They are both big spending, big government, freedom restricting, elites. Sure, there are a few true liberals and true conservatives, but for the most part the entire government is leftwing, no matter who holds the executive or legislative branch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
I don't see it. I have you calling them essentially the same... and I have the left complaining of de-regulation and lower taxes... anti union expansion through open bidding. The right used the Patriot act as a tool... the left uses it as a weapon. The right uses stimulus to spur growth for all citizens... the left targets it's constituency. The right pushes for capitalism and the free market... the left champions equality and assumes control of as many industries as possible, in order to further that cause.

Etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I don't see it. I have you calling them essentially the same... and I have the left complaining of de-regulation and lower taxes... anti union expansion through open bidding. The right used the Patriot act as a tool... the left uses it as a weapon. The right uses stimulus to spur growth for all citizens... the left targets it's constituency. The right pushes for capitalism and the free market... the left champions equality and assumes control of as many industries as possible, in order to further that cause.

Etc.
I agree. If they were the same, the majority of ethnic minorities and union workers would not vote Dem every time. I think you nailed the biggest difference. Dems are a redistributive group who want to play Santa to unions and non-contributors in exchange for their votes. Pubs believe that whatever is good for the economy is good for the vast majority of people. They believe in a safety net for those who truly cannot participate in the economy, and a decent days work for the rest. A down economy works in favor of Dems who view it as a chance to seine for more disaffected voters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I don't see it. I have you calling them essentially the same... and I have the left complaining of de-regulation and lower taxes... anti union expansion through open bidding. The right used the Patriot act as a tool... the left uses it as a weapon. The right uses stimulus to spur growth for all citizens... the left targets it's constituency. The right pushes for capitalism and the free market... the left champions equality and assumes control of as many industries as possible, in order to further that cause.

Etc.
Bush spent taxpayer dollars/blood fighting a for-profit war to help major corps/banks.

Obama
spends taxpayer money bloating the government, while emptying the treasury and handing it over to major corps/banks.

Bush created the DHS, expanding government recklessly, the reps came up with the patriot act, which is a full out assault on the bill of rights. It also paid off handsomely for major corps/banks.

Obama gave us healthcare reform, which is a full out assault on the bill of rights. If fully implemented, it will pay off handsomely for major corps/banks.

Bush brought us bankruptcy reform, which gift wrapped a big wet kiss to major corps/banks.

Obama brought us financial reform, which gift wrapped a big wet kiss to major corps/banks.

Bush started TARP, which handed taxpayer dollars straight to major corps/banks.

Obama injected TARP with steroids, which handed taxpayer dollars straight to major corps/banks/international corps/international banks.

Now, point out exactly what the difference is, in the 2. :laughing: And don't give me the "Bush did it to help the country" horsecrap, because the Obamabots say the exact same thing, and they feel as strongly as you do.

The national debt is now $14 trillion dollars, both sides are equally to blame, and no one is ever going to pay it back. That's the part that gets me, even if the federal government confiscated all personal wealth, all industry, everything, we still could not pay off the debt. :crazy:

And now, Obama is determined to drive energy prices in this country, to unsustainable levels.. :crazy:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
so give us three things to fix three problems.. and that doesn't include just voting someone out...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
so give us three things to fix three problems.. and that doesn't include just voting someone out...
That's the hell of the deal, you can't fix it. We have the national equivalent of the Titanic, it's fatally wounded by debt load/completely dysfunctional government, and apathetic citizens.

But, if you want to turn the pumps on anyway...

1: End the fed, return to the gold standard and get off the fiat worthless currency. Remove the private banking cartel from the circle of people we owe money to. Central privately owned banks have always been and still are a scam to strip the citizenry of their wealth. When the fed was created in 1913, we became a debtor economy. And now we are at the end of that cycle.

This will help stop the cycle of borrowing and spending. When money is worth something, it is handled much more carefully.

2: End all the wars/covert actions/etc. Bring all the troops home and use a policy of firm, swift punishment for aggression towards us. Reduce the military by 30%.

Saving the money spent protecting everyone and every interest around the world, will help cut into the debt/deficit.

3: End all foreign aid until less than 3% of the US citizenry lives below poverty levels. No money goes out, period.

We give away about $100 billion a year in aid, time to give it to the people who pay for it.. another deficit reduction.

4: Repeal the 16th amendment, remove the shackles from the middle class and let them breath and have the ability to move up.

This will free up consumer money, which will drive the economy forward. No, it won't bankrupt us, we are already bankrupt.

We would also have to completely revamp our energy policy, eliminate homeland security, reduce countless bureaucracies, fix our trade policy to where people making $80 a month aren't doing our manufacturing in some 3rd world country. Without jobs, everything else is a mute point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Bush spent taxpayer dollars/blood fighting a for-profit war to help major corps/banks.

Obama spends taxpayer money bloating the government, while emptying the treasury and handing it over to major corps/banks.

Bush created the DHS, expanding government recklessly, the reps came up with the patriot act, which is a full out assault on the bill of rights. It also paid off handsomely for major corps/banks.

Obama gave us healthcare reform, which is a full out assault on the bill of rights. If fully implemented, it will pay off handsomely for major corps/banks.

Bush brought us bankruptcy reform, which gift wrapped a big wet kiss to major corps/banks.

Obama brought us financial reform, which gift wrapped a big wet kiss to major corps/banks.

Bush started TARP, which handed taxpayer dollars straight to major corps/banks.

Obama injected TARP with steroids, which handed taxpayer dollars straight to major corps/banks/international corps/international banks.

Now, point out exactly what the difference is, in the 2. :laughing: And don't give me the "Bush did it to help the country" horsecrap, because the Obamabots say the exact same thing, and they feel as strongly as you do.

The national debt is now $14 trillion dollars, both sides are equally to blame, and no one is ever going to pay it back. That's the part that gets me, even if the federal government confiscated all personal wealth, all industry, everything, we still could not pay off the debt. :crazy:

And now, Obama is determined to drive energy prices in this country, to unsustainable levels.. :crazy:
The problem with your logic is that major corps/banks profit from almost every form of activity in the country because sooner or later, all of the money flows through them. That does not mean every activity is BECAUSE of them. Just because some corps/banks profit from the Iraq war, that doesn't mean the motivation for the war has anything to do with them. The same logic can be applied to almost every point above. A basic tenet of logical thinking is that just because two events happen at the same time does not mean one necessarily is related to the other.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
The problem with your logic is that major corps/banks profit from almost every form of activity in the country because sooner or later, all of the money flows through them. That does not mean every activity is BECAUSE of them. Just because some corps/banks profit from the Iraq war, that doesn't mean the motivation for the war has anything to do with them. The same logic can be applied to almost every point above. A basic tenet of logical thinking is that just because two events happen at the same time does not mean one necessarily is related to the other.
Well, it is.

The Iraq war is a great example. We went in for "regime change". And, instead of using our military, which we pay dearly to have for just such an occasion, we used politics. We could have easily went in, got Saddam, supported the Iraqi's in setting up a new government (instead of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of them) and spent about 36 months, and all of our allies would have been there with us. But no, we completely destroy what little infrastructure they had (just to try and shock and awe Chine/Russia/Iran) then we proceeding to invade the country, with no clear goals, very limited support from our allies, and a gung ho go kill hodgie mentality. We disbanded their weak military, we basically disbanded their piecemeal police force, and we bombed, shot, blew up their citizens to the point that we were actually worse than Saddam.

Now, why would we do all that, when it made absolutely no military sense to do it? Profit.. You can dance around, play pussyfoot all you want, but it's pretty damn clear that we went about the Iraq war in the worst possible way. Hell, our actions in Iraq should be recorded in history under "What not to do when conquering a country". Remember how the Iraqi oil was gonna pay for that war? Well Tex, how much you figger they have paid?
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top