Liberals Get What They Wanted...High Fuel Prices

[carpro]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008309

Pains at the Pump
Don't liberals like sky-high fuel prices?

Saturday, April 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn't a wake-up call, then what is?"--Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), April 23, 2006

Yes, that's a fine question Senator Schumer asks. But a wake-up call for what, exactly? A wake-up call to produce more domestic oil? Heaven forbid.

In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%.

They have also voted against producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf, where there are more supplies by some estimates than in Saudi Arabia. Environmental objections seem baseless given that even the high winds and waves of Hurricane Katrina didn't cause oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1970s the environmentalists and their followers in Congress even protested building the Alaska pipeline, which today supplies nearly one million barrels of oil a day. If they've discovered some new law of economics in which a fall in output with rising demand can cause a reduction in price, we'd love to hear it.

The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today's high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The thread title is deceptive. No proof that liberals wanted high oil prices, just because some wanted to protect the Arctic Wildlife Preserve.

More like oilmen Bush & Cheney will benefit for years after leaving office! Better buy Halliburton stock.

 

[carpro]

"Scan the Web sites of the major environmental groups and you will find long tracts on the evils of fossil fuels and how wonderful it would be if only selfish Americans were more like the enlightened and eco-friendly Europeans. You will find plenty of articles with titles such as: "More Taxes Please: Why the Price of Gas Is too Low." Just last weekend Tia Nelson, the daughter of the founder of Earth Day, declared that even at $3 a gallon she wants gas prices to go higher."

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Here is my layperson's perspective on it.

The Dems like to scream and shout about how not conserving energy and finding less oil related fuels is the reason for high gas prices. This is, of course, political rhetoric which has very little to do with trying to solve the problem and help out the average guy. They are simply trying to smear their political opponets and still placate their constituents.

The GOP talks about lack of domestic drilling being the reason for high gas prices. This is, of course, political rhetoric which has very little to do with trying to solve the problem and help out the average guy. They are simply trying to smear their political opponets and still placate their constituents.

Big oil blames Katrina, Iran, high taxes, the DEMS, you and me, and anyone and everyone they can to justify the fact that they always pull in record profits while they gouge us at the pump and tell us they have to do it.

So, Joseph, if you were prince of the planet and king for a day, what would you do? Good question. Let me tell you:

1. I would drill in ANWAR 3 years ago.
2. I would build more refineries.
3. I would encourage more conservation and more energy effecient fuels.
4. I would stop dancing around the issues and accepting the excuses from big oil for their price gouging and start funding some projects to produce cheaper fuels, or give tax breaks to those companies who are not gouging the prices. I would find some way to reward honesty and integrity and punish those who just want to get rich off the pain of others.

Now that I have said my peace and probably made everyone mad, I leave you to burn me at the stake. From my point of view, however, none of the power people who could make a positive change (GOP, DEMS, or big oil) care one bit about the average person. All they care about is manipulating a vote out of them and smearing each other so as not to be accountable for their own actions or lack of leadership.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

Liberals Get What They Wanted...High Fuel Prices

I'm pleased to see that Joseph has finally realized that George W. Bush is a liberal.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Galatian,

I never said he wasn't.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

My mistake. Sorry. So you voted for him anyway?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

No problem.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[The Galatian]

OOPs. messed up the edit. Joseph apparently responded to only my first sentence.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Yes. I voted for him anyway because he was the best candidate in the race.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
The thread title is deceptive. No proof that liberals wanted high oil prices, just because some wanted to protect the Arctic Wildlife Preserve.

More like oilmen Bush & Cheney will benefit for years after leaving office! Better buy Halliburton stock.

Lets get real and take a balanced approached this guy in his blog explains a lot.

In Iran it is not high enough

snippet:In sharp contrast, oil in Saudi Arabia costs, by OPEC's own admission, just $1.50 a barrel to find and pump (and probably less). Add the cost of pipelines, processing, and shipping, and it would still be comfortably profitable at $5 a barrel, delivered in Rotterdam or Houston or Mumbai. But oil producers manipulate the market to keep prices high -- and now, at over$70 per barrel, oil is wildly, extortionately, obscenely profitable for the OPEC sheikhs and their oil patch cheerleaders (think Exxon-Mobil, or Lee Raymond}. It is almost as obscenely profitable for their cronies whose costs of production are higher -- the producers of oil from the North Sea, the North Slope of Alaska, the wastes of Siberia, and the deep-water wells of the Gulf of Mexico. Even in the Canadian tar sands, where oil companies are investing billions to steam oil from the hard black earth, the cost of production is just $20 a barrel, leaving a profit of 275 percent at today's price.

If the producers of wheat and other food crops could collude on prices as successfully, the world economy would probably collapse, and famine would rage around the planet.


I think all the oil sheikhs we protect in the middle east deserve to give us a major discount
for it is our blood that keeps them safe...and they would still make a profit or would they then whine and scare with "Peak Oil". and bush promised to jaw bone these guys to keep the price down...can we say flip-flopper boys and girls. bush does not care, he is willing to play the martyr to keep it high in the biggest "Cronies admininstration" perhaps in our history.

ANWR...can we say a mega-drop in the bucket from an area a Republican President designated as pristine with the hope that it would stay that way. It is not a liberal wish as those who will try to avert eyes from the real greed and spin.

 

[carpro]

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=31983

WASHINGTON — Republican strategists have been making hay of Senator John Kerry's support a decade ago of a 50-cent-per-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax. History let Mr. Kerry off the hook: the proposal never advanced in Congress, so he never cast a vote for it.

Few politicians, especially those with presidential ambitions, would entertain such a big jump in the federal gasoline tax today. With the price of gasoline reaching more than $2 a gallon at the pumps this month, Senator Kerry has argued for oil to be diverted from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a plan President Bush has rejected in pursuit of his energy bill.

But the country would indeed be better off if gasoline taxes had been raised by 50 cents a gallon when Mr. Kerry favored the idea. And the United States would still be wise today, if it increased gasoline taxes by the same amount now.

But the country would indeed be better off if gasoline taxes had been raised by 50 cents a gallon when Mr. Kerry favored the idea. And the United States would still be wise today, if it increased gasoline taxes by the same amount now.

 

[gb93433]

Isn't it re-publicans who own the oil companies?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Isn't it re-publicans who own the oil companies?

And a lot of Democrats and independents and minor party members and mutual funds and pension plans and 401(k)'s and IRA's. In other words, probably most people in the United States.

 

[saturneptune]

Joseph,
Excellent post!!! The fact is that both parties are scum, and dont care about the American people.

Joseph, would you consider running for President under the US Constitution party. You got my vote.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
they always pull in record profits while they gouge us at the pump and tell us they have to do it.

Hey, Joseph, I guess you and Senator Pryor are best buddies now since ya'll are sounding so much alike nowadays.

There you go again with this ignorance-based charge that you are being "gouged" at the pump. No, you are not. If you were then you and your buddy, Senator Pryor, would be able to prove it. But you can't. And if you and Senator Pryor and Bill O'Reilly can't put up then ya'll really ought to shut up with this falsehood.

You really need to check the following websites on a daily basis when the markets are open so that you can know what's going on in the oil and gasoline markets:

http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_CL

http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_HU

What do you want gasoline stations to do, sell gasoline at a loss to make you, Senator Pryor, and Bill O'Reilly happy? Forgetaboutit. The oil companies are not going to go broke just to satisfy ya'll's populist poppycock.

If you researched the subject you would know that the vast majority of the record profits of the integrated oil companies came from the upstream side of the business, not the downstream side. This is an irrefutable fact. And it is easy to understand why.

For example, the lifting costs for oil are approximately $20/bbl. So a couple of years ago when oil was at $40/bbl. on the NYMEX the profit was $20/bbl. Today at $70/bbl. on the NYMEX the profit is $50/bbl., or 150% higher. That's where the lion's share of the record profits come from.

Now if you can get the NYMEX to raise its margin requirements to cut back on the speculators, get the president of Iran to shut up about wiping out Israel, and get President Bush to shut up about starting what could very well end up being a world war with Iran, the price of oil could go back down to $40/bbl.

The oil companies still net about $.05/gal. at the pump, regardless of whether the price of oil is $40/bbl. or $70/bbl., whether the price at the pump is $1.00/gal. or $3.00/gal. The only time this changes is for brief periods during shortages such as what happened after the twin hurricanes last year that knocked out 20% of U.S. refining capacity for several weeks.

 

[saturneptune]

Ken,
News Flash!!! Joseph is right. You are falling into the old trap of one corrupt party fighting with another corrupt party. The fight is a facade to protect their power base so the American people think they have a choice. If thats what you want to believe, go ahead. Both parties need beiefs such as this.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
oil is wildly, extortionately, obscenely profitable

And during the mid-80's and the late 90's, to use your terminology, oil was wildly, obscenely unprofitable.

You know why? Because commodities are cyclical in nature - whether it is oil, soybeans, wheat, corn, etc. Just like the economy. Just like stocks and bonds.

And the shareholders who take the risks to keep searching for a vital commodity such as oil when there is little or no profit in it deserve the reap the rewards when the market turns in their favor.

If socialists don't like it, that's tough. It's how a free market economy works. Maybe socialists would prefer to live in Cuba(since the Soviet Union no longer exists) where the government controls the economy.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
You are falling into the old trap of one corrupt party fighting with another corrupt party.

Huh? I have absolutely no use for either socialist branch of the Demopublican Party(or if one prefers, the Republicrat Party).

I said nothing in my post about politics. I was talking economics.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Joseph is right.

No, Joseph was wrong about this subject last autumn and he is still wrong about it today. My points about the economics of the integrated oil companies at the top of this page are irrefutable.