*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

Yep, and won't start now.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

But historically you've never let the facts confuse you.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon
Loading thread data ...

Actually, the restoration was a bit before I was born. However, I've heard of it, and benefitted greatly from it.

So, how does that relate to a foreign born election stealing Chicago thug, who has ordered the government to deny drilling permits, for oil?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

He must have missed the revelation.

Learn more about Jesus

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Reaganomics may not have appealed to socialists, but it was totally effective in producing prosperity.

Where, in the Constitution, does it give the Prez the power to decide which companies succeed or fail?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

The Republicans have no plan for deficit reduction. Many still cling to the Reaganomics which has been completely discredited by economists.

Obama's problem is that he inherited an economy in a severe recession, on the brink of depression, and brought it back from the edge. This required spending to prevent banks and key industries from collapsing.

Can you imagine what the GOP would be saying about Obama if he had allowed GM and Chrysler to go under?!

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Where, in the Constitution, does it give any branch of government power to spend tax payer money to keep any bank, or industry from collapsing?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

you need to understand the difference between reserves and economically recoverable. Reserves are recoverable but not at todays price. so there is 200 years of oil there, but not recoverable AT TODAY's PRICE. As the price goes up, more of that oil becomes economically recoverable.

So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price needs to go up.

Mark

Reply to
Mark

One of the problems with CNG is the storage and fill up. Heavier tanks and hoses are needed to handle the pressure. It just isn't as handy as good old gasoline. One couldn't dump five gallons in a car's tank along the roadside.

Reply to
Dean Hoffman

Might I suggest an alternative answer?

To get more oil, more drillers need to get permission from Der Fuehr^h^h^h^h Der Prezident.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price needs to go up.

Mark

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Nope. Consider "fracking" for the recovery of natural gas. The price of such gas has fallen through the floor.

Using newer methods does NOT automatically mean higher prices.

Reply to
HeyBub

Which unfortunately is some conglomeration of crap. They are comparing 8 years of Reagan to the current less than 4 of Obama.

Let's look at the real data. From 1980 to 1984 the federal budget grew by 9.7% in real dollars under Reagan. Under Obama, it's grown by 19%. In 1984, the deficit was Those are the hard numbers. Don't believe me, go look up the actual numbers yourself instead of relying on some fluff piece of crap journalism.

The Republicans have had many plans for deficit reduction through decreasing spending. Paul Ryan had one such plan. He was promplty villified by Obama in person, in public. So much for bipartisanship. There was also plans for deficit reduction presented to Obama by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Remember them? They were appointed to reach a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficits. Obama received their report and never mentioned it again. I guess on the positive side, at least he didn't villify them too.

Which is a lie. The money was LENT to the banks and all the money LENT to the banks has been paid back with interest. Of the rest of the $750bil of TARP money that was authorized to be lent out or invested, only about $75bil still remains at risk. The rest has been paid back. This also was way back in 2008/2009. So, it obviously has NOTHING to do with the current spending and borrowing orgy. How much longer are you lib whiners and apologists going to keep blaming the financial crisis of 2008?

You brought up Reagan for comparison. After he was elected, I never saw him whining about how everything was still Jimmy Carter's fault. He was left with a mess that included high unemployment, double digit inflation, Tbonds at 18%, and the prime rate at over 20%. Yet by this time in his presidency, those economic policies you don't agree with had produced a booming economy. We had month after month of 300,000 to 400,000 jobs created. One month, we hit over a million. Inflation was busted and coming down sharply.

Reply to
trader4

Go back and study Econ-101 again. As long as there are artificial controls (see: OPEC and Komrad O'Hussein) on production, such simplistic a analysis as you attempt is meaningless propaganda. These artificial barriers leave a

*lot* of room for technology to sneak "more expensive" oil into the market, keeping prices *DOWN*. If another barrier is broken down (I suggest that Komrad O'Hussein is the easiest for us to control) the price will fall even lower.

IOW, bullshit.

Reply to
krw

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I agree, it's all BS. Saudi Arabia just yesterday (?) announced they'll increase the oil they supply, and promptly oil prices dropped. I'm sure President Obama is grateful, and so am I. Nevertheless, the only real solution to the energy problem is to get off imported oil. Everyone. Especially China and India, and the rest of the developing world. I really wish that the nuclear industry get off their duff and solve the safety, reliability and disposal problems. Unfortunately, I think that is becoming less and less likely, or at least more and more costly. That leaves conservation and solar and wind power. And they have a few drawbacks too.

Reply to
Han

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:O8idnQkmBcOktPfSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I like your "studiously ignored problem". In fact, it's just that problem that should be solved with new technology rather than old technology coal and oil generating plants. I'm not /totally/ excluding the fuels, but there needs to be cleaner and more efficient burning taking place if those old fuels are used. I believe that for baseload, nuclear should be good enough, if properly constructed (a real big if).

Reply to
Han

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You can do it anywhere a govt wants to heavily subsidize it as that is the only way it's competitive. They're doing it right here in the Peoples Republic of NJ using the money from YOUR electric bill. They give that money to the yuppies putting those panels on their McMansion. Obama chips in too.

There are some new nukes in the works. One good reason there aren't more is that it's kind of bad for your financial health to spend maybe $50mil on all kinds of studies, legal battles, taking on all the environmentalists, etc on the HOPE that one day they might actually let you build the thing. Usually they don't and you're $50mil is gone.

How much do you think Keystone has spent on that pipeline that Obama is blocking..... Oh wait.... Late breaking news. I just heard Obama is going to Oklahoma tomorrow for a photo op with the proposed pipeline. Seems for some reason he now wants us to think he's really in favor of it. What a surprise.

Reply to
trader4

Which means much of pricing, is illusion.

Greg

Reply to
gregz

We *were* talking about the price of oil. Are you attempting to change the subject?

There is a difference between doing and pretending.

Because you leftist Luddite morons won't let them! It's not about "green" it's about "cave".

No, they DON'T WORK. You need 100% backup, so you just *increased* the cost of energy by at least the cost of the generation infrastructure.

Reply to
krw

Excessive speculation. Can't find the video now.

Here is another.

formatting link
Greg

Reply to
gregz

You were in an area where it was only management, though.

Reply to
krw

If you're in front of me on I85 at 5:00AM Monday morning or 5:00PM Friday afternoon, you're going to get an earful as I blow your ass off the road! ;-)

Reply to
krw

LNG is not a good solution at all. It doesn't liquefy at normal temperatures and must be vented. Talk about GHGs! CNG isn't dense enough to be useful (and the container too heavy). If it were just a matter of delivery infrastructure you'd be seeing it now. It's not. ...and if it were, you'd be fighting that too.

Reply to
krw

A convenient boogey man. The only way speculators could keep the price of oil high would be for them to actually buy the oil, take delivery of it and do something with it. Otherwise, the most they can do is perhaps slightly exaggerate price moves in either direction.

That reporter has a valid point. The decline of the dollar is a significant factor and it's perfectly legitimate. However he is quite the buffoon too. He denies that supply and demand are factors, which is just plain nuts. And he claims that oil needs to rise even more because it must maintain some fixed relation to the price of gold. The problems with that are obvious. Gold has skyrocketed in the last few years. Just look around you at all the other things that have not. The level of inflation in the overall economy is still low. So, if oil must maintain this sacred fixed relationship to oil, why not say cars and refrigerators? And that relationship between gold and oil could just as easily be fixed by gold declining.

Reply to
trader4

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.