|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 21, 2008 12:19:15 GMT -6
"With the Gallup poll of June 20, 2008 reporting that Congress's approval is at an all time low (in the 35 year history of this survey question), and with the salient issue of oil prices taking center stage in the 2008 election, John McCain's strategy and objectives have become clear. He must attempt to tie Obama to the miserably unpopular Democratic Congress. The bridge for making the connection between Obama and the unpopular Congress is the issue of oil prices and drilling. It is a simple issue. Gas prices were at roughly $2 a gallon in 2006 before the Democrats took over. They have doubled in a single year. He should ask the question: What has the Congress, controlled by Obama's party, done about it? Nothing. What does Obama propose to do about it? Nothing. McCain wants to begin drilling offshore. Obama's response is that this will not reduce the price of gas immediately. This is patent nonsense. The price is artificially high now. There are no shortages, and it is driven up by the speculation that has gripped the markets that oil prices will continue their rise unabated. If the Congress were to open up America's own huge reserves of oil, not only offshore but in ANWR and oil shale, the speculation that has fueled this price rise would begin to abate, perhaps rapidly, because those who purchase oil futures would be afraid to purchase them at $150 a barrel when in a year or two, America's massive new production could drive the price drastically lower. The fear which drove the price up rapidly will drive the price down just as rapidly. The consequences for the economy, needless to say, would be nothing short of spectacular. McCain should make this argument, explaining to people that they will get more or less immediate relief if Congress should take these actions (not to mention the construction of new refineries-we have not had a new one in 30 years- and the nuclear plants that McCain has already proposed). Obama will be isolated with the enviro-leftists, and will be unable to "flip flop" to a pro-drilling position for fear of alienating his own base. The "Drill Now, Pay Less" argument, and Congress' deliberate inaction on this issue, also serve to link Obama to the Democrat Congress, which cancels and perhaps reverses, any drag which Bush represented for McCain. This strategy can have down ballot consequences as well. If the GOP can nationalize the election around this issue, as I believe they can, they can reverse the results in Districts such as the three (in Mississippi, Louisiana and Illinois) that recently went Democratic. Even if the freshmen Democratic incumbents support drilling (as I believe they would, given their respective districts' conservative bent), the GOP could argue convincingly that as long as San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi is Speaker, legislation lifting the ban on drilling will never make it to the House floor. Since these allegedly conservative Democrat congressmen vote for her for Speaker, they are complicit in her deliberate refusal to bring the legislation up and thus they too are responsible for the higher gas prices. "McCain's strategy is clear. Tie the albatross of the Congress and oil prices around Obama's neck. Done effectively, this issue will turn what I believe would have been a fairly comfortable win by McCain anyway into a landslide. And, significantly, it would cost the Democrats control of the Congress as well. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2034360/postsThis issue of oil and fuel could be McSame's hot button issue.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 21, 2008 12:33:03 GMT -6
If i was obama, I'd make the argument that:
in 100 years, nobody will be using oil. Either we can be the country that discovered and started exporting the alternative, or we can be the country that was the last to change and has to import energy from the "new" saudi arabia.
I don't have faith in my fellow americans to grasp that concept though.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 21, 2008 14:00:36 GMT -6
Gas was $1.59 before Bush invaded Iraq
McCain voted in favor of the enron loophole that has allowed speculators into the oil market
Where is all the millions of gallons of free flowing oil the neocons promised us we would get from invading Iraq?
Where was Bush calling for his connections in Saudi Arabia and the oil industry to behave themselves?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 21, 2008 18:21:04 GMT -6
Obama will be isolated with the enviro-leftists, and will be unable to "flip flop" to a pro-drilling position for fear of alienating his own base. Just to set the record straight, Obama is not afraid to "flip-flop" on anything, as he has clearly proven in the last few days, by welching on his campaign pledge to accept public financing, and welching on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA ( See Fortune Magazine article). That being said, why aren't oil companies drilling in the offshore areas they already have leases on? Do they need still more taxpayer-handouts to drill in the areas they already have?
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 21, 2008 23:25:17 GMT -6
After taking the body blows of higher energy prices, Americans seem more willing than ever to fight back with bold initiatives. For example, just over three-quarters (76 percent) support immediately increasing oil drilling in the United States — a position recently espoused by presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. More than seven in 10 Democrats (71 percent) also hold this view. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369827,00.html
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 22, 2008 5:22:18 GMT -6
And it would be the wrong view.
Don't you folks see whats going on here? this is merely another "shock doctrine" orchestrated by big oil and its allies in the Bush administration and congress to give away more public land and resources to the mega oil industry. They already have 68 MILLION acres of UNUSED leases. Even the most optimistic projects say we won't see any of this oil for 4-7 years and its effect on pricing will be pennies, while the environmental costs are monumental.
The only real way to break the oil addiction is increased efficiency and conservation, alternative energy sources, viable and reliable mass transit, stopping the war in the middle east, and getting the speculators out of the market by closing the enron loophole, and especially a congress and dadministration NOT as friendly to big oil. We also must consider nationalizing the mineral resources, and breaking up the big oil monopolies to get some real competition back into the system.
Dollar devaluation and speculation are the big gorillas in the room that more drilling does nothing to address. And since the dollar is so low it make our oil less costly and more priitable to sell on the open market - so just like most of the existing Alaska oil, Americans will actually see precious little of our own oil.
Using up a limited resource faster is the solution to the problem? yeah thats the ticket!! Hummers for everyone!!
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 22, 2008 9:51:05 GMT -6
The Dollar soon "won't be worth a Continental". Continental currency was a paper currency issued by the Continental Congress, after the Revolutionary War began in 1775. Eric P. Newman, a leading authority on the early paper money of America, distinguishes between Continental Currency, issued by the authority of the Continental Congress, Colonial currency, issued by the colonies before the revolution, and state currency, issued after the Declaration [though many collectors lump together state and colonial issues and refer to both as Colonial Currency]. [Continental currency was denominated in dollars [from 1/6 of a dollar to $80, including many odd denominations in between], while Colonial currency was denominated in pounds, shillings, and pence, as well as in dollars.] With no solid backing and being easily counterfeited, the continentals quickly lost their value, giving voice to the phrase "not worth a continental". The painful experience of the runaway inflation and collapse of the Continental dollar prompted the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to include the gold and silver clause into the United States Constitution so that the individual states could not issue bills of credit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_%28currency%29
|
|
|
Post by rwc on Jun 22, 2008 14:54:40 GMT -6
One of the things the MSM refuses to mention in relation to fuel prices is the stagnat wages for most working and middle-class people, not to mention those on fixed incomes.
For the last 30+ years wages have remained flat and in some cases have even regressed in some fields.
With food and fuel prices skyrocketing and no help from the employer people are being squeezed hard.
If wages increased with the price of inflation people wouldn't be so mad. Because they'd know their wages are keeping pace.
But no one wants to talk about this aspect because of the corporate hacks controlling the MSM.
Another aspect is rampant consumerism itself which is the driver of natural resource consumption and global environmental devastation. Uncontrolled you get a hell hole like China which is rapidly poisoning itself to death.
Get rid of consumerism and a lot energy problems vanish.
And lastly the MSM isn't talking what we can do short term to help.
Things like: *Rebuilding our rail system so we can get rid of interstate trucking (which is artefact of cheap energy and will die off in time) and use it instead of airlines to move people over short to medium distances.
*Penalize users of SUV's and large pickups with gas guzzler taxes or ban them outright.
*Raise CAFE to 40 mpg.
*Stop building commuter communities where people have to commute 50-150 miles a day to work. Instead encourage businesses to set up where people live.
*Stop buying shoddily made crap and instead purchase goods that are either resusable or better made and last much longer. Crappy goods take just as much natural resources to makes as the high quality ones. One ends up in a land fill the other doesn't.
*Funding research into Thorium and waste Nuclear reactors. Other alternative energy ideas are already floating in more money than they know what to do with.
*Ban countries and soverign funds from buying our natural resources or drilling off our coasts.
* Give taxbreaks for companies doing telecommuting.
* Subzidize home solar cells in the west and south-west.
* Preparing for the day airline travel will be for the well off only. Mass air travel was always predicated on cheap fuel, which no longer exists. Its just a matter of time before most airlines double their airfares in order to survive.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 22, 2008 15:52:34 GMT -6
Oil leases go untapped. A handful of oil companies control exploration, drilling, piping, refining and retailing. Those need to be broken up, so there is competition in place of collusion.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 22, 2008 22:25:09 GMT -6
Oil leases go untapped. A handful of oil companies control exploration, drilling, piping, refining and retailing. Those need to be broken up, so there is competition in place of collusion. GB Excellent point. That's right where we should start. Mergers and consolidations always increase the pricing power of those that remain standing. Oil companies are no different — the less of them there are, and the less competition they have — the more they can fix prices. Breaking them up and blocking future mergers would certainly help. Maybe we should also terminate leases the oil companies have on any drilling areas not being used. Maybe somebody else might find it profitable to drill on those sites.
|
|
|
Post by rwc on Jun 23, 2008 23:37:27 GMT -6
Another thing is we need guarantees that the oil extracted from ANWR and off-shore goes to America not sold to Asia or Europe.
Right now we don't have that. Any oil extracted can very easily be shipped to Asia as it stands.
IMS when there was first talk of drilling ANWR, the oil companies wanted the oil sold on the open market. Anyone who was against selling on the open market was pilloried.
Until Congress locks big oil into binding contracts where they can only sell to the U.S. we shouldn't drill.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 24, 2008 1:31:14 GMT -6
Oil, like water, seeks its own level. Whether it comes to the US is incidental, as the demand is relatively fixed. If we extract more and use it locally, we import less, dropping the price worldwide. There will never be one price for the US, another for the rest of the world.
The ex-Texaco refinery north of Seattle gets its supply from Indonesia, as it is set up for light crude. Much of the heavy crude coming down the Alaska pipeline goes to Japan. Other than the cost of transport, the market is worldwide, and so is the pricing.
Like Norway, we need the US govt to explore and extract the crude, then sell to the highest bidder. That's the best way for us to control the supply. Oil companies have no motivation to drill, as they make more when there is shortage and prices are high.
GB
|
|
|
Post by db on Jun 24, 2008 20:16:02 GMT -6
The American people are whistling past the cemetery. Bush and Cheney, are the oilmen, who created this disaster. Conservation, no; Hummers, yes. Breakup the oil companies, no; gouging and obscene oil profits, yes. Impeach Bush and Cheney, no; allow the traitors and war criminals to go free, yes.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 25, 2008 5:01:02 GMT -6
Just the threat of breaking up the oil companies would cause a major drop in prices. A populist president would reinvigorate the Anti-trust function of the Justice Dept and go after them. Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who started it? Reagan gutted it.
GB
|
|
|
Post by db on Jun 25, 2008 18:27:39 GMT -6
GB, you are right. What we need now, more then ever, is another TR, to break up the corporations.
|
|