When gas prices were up, the Republicans were shouting their opposition from the rooftops. Now, that President Obama lowers gas prices, they are nowhere to be found because God forbid a Republican be happy about something good Obama has done.
Just last month, Mitt Romney said, "he gets full credit or blame for what's happened to this economy and what's happened to gasoline prices under his watch and what's happened to our schools and what's happened to our military forces -- all these things are his responsibility while he's president."
Mitt is not wrong about those things being his responsibility, but all of these things were in sad shape before Obama even took a step into the Oval Office. Let's remember that the schools are horrible largely due No Child Left Behind and that was President Bush's baby. The gas prices were high during the Bush Administration as well.
Now, gas prices are down about $0.12 per gallon and Romney and the other Republicans have not a word to say. They are now down because Obama demanded a crackdown on oil speculation.
Obama lowers gas prices and not only are Republicans completely silent, but there is not much being reported in the media either. President Obama could give world peace, eliminate poverty and hand every American their dream home and people would still complain and refuse to give this man credit for the good he has done. Come on now Republicans, it is not considered being liberal to give credit where credit is due. That is called human decency.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 127
I would however argue that the agreement he has forged with the US auto industry to steadily improve fuel efficiency was about 20 years overdue, and will in time decrease the impact of oil price spikes on the US economy. I still remember the idiotic law passed in the middle of the GW Bush presidency to give small business owners a tax refund for buying a Hummer. Not making that up, it happened. Hummer is of course now out of business.
I have to agree with Chris to a degree "control gasoline prices in a global market." However, I think there is a percentage of the gas price that is local, more than just taxes. I believe the nature of the refineries, the newer the more efficient lower prices, more capacity/more supply lower prices, more feedstock lower prices, less restriction on the nature of the gas (winter and summer blend change over reduces capaicity), location (closer to the end user the lower prices), the increase in natural gas power vehicles (more fuel supply) lower pprices. All of these can be infleunced by the President/his adminstration.
"US auto industry to steadily improve fuel efficiency" that is also true in the long-term, just not right now.
The politician may want to talk about what they are doing but they have little impact in the short-term.
It is about supply and demand. Either drive down the demand, say by have a weak or slowing economy. Or by raising supply at a lower cost.
The guy with last hands on gets the credit or the blame. And the longer that person has their hands on the more justified. In the case of DC that includes the Congress.
What, that Obama took office with gas at under $1.90 a gallon and the dim wit thinks he lowered them or that the twit thinks Obama has a magic gas wand?
I dont think the GOP yelled about the gas prices loud enough... When gas prices soared when Bush was in office, the libs/Dems ranted and raved and blamed Bush... Remember Rosemary , Peloski promised that if the Dems got back into control the prices would come down... They did get in but true to form, she didnt keep her word..
Does he want people to be dependent on government?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
I declare it a draw.
Well, how many states do you have us down for?
Exactly, then why do you and your like keep blaming him when the gas prices rise?
When Obama took office gas was under $1.90 a gallon. What is it now?
Yeah. A democrat won promising to end that.
"All it is, really, is a Marxist exercise in minority grievance-mongering and wealth redistribution on a global scale."
Posted on Wed Mar 21 2012 00:15:32 GMT+1100 (AUS Eastern Daylight Time) by Reaganite Republican
"The weak and bickering GOP field does not offer sufficient explanation, imho: clearly, Obama thinks he's been pre-ordained yet again."
"That’s what really gets my goat... if this country survives this nightmare, we need another party... worse than ever".
Progressive = socialist/marxist/communist
From http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-04/sudden-oil-sell-off-should-drive-down-gas-prices
"In an attempt to bring down oil prices that had edged toward $130 earlier this year, OPEC has been pumping like mad, increasing production by about 2.3 million barrels per day." and "OPEC is working hard to bring down oil prices that jumped towards $130 a barrel earlier this year, its secretary general said on Thursday, and is pumping much more than its official target even as exports from cartel-member Iran dwindle." http://www.cnbc.com/id/47276245
Here is a link
;-)
"The right must hate their kids." Au contraire....
Oil Prodution/drilling on Federal land is at a 9 year low.
That is the only control Mr. Obama has, and he is stifling it at every opportunity.
"Domestic oil output is the highest in eight years."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/americans-gaining-energy-independence-with-u-s-as-top-producer.html
Perhaps you should take a look at them too Renee as you seem to have missed Mr L's point.......
"The expansion in oil and natural gas production isn’t without a downside. Environmentalists say hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is shot underground to blast apart rock and free fossil fuels -- is tainting drinking water. "
Damn those kids eh?
No, my facts are not inaccurate at all. You simply failed to understand what I said.
I stated with great specificity, "on Federal Land".
Fracking is not permitted on "Federal Land", it is only on private land, that the oil/gas rights are leased, from the private owners.
Production on (let me say again) FEDERAL land is at a 9 year low. The land the Federal Government controls.
Perhaps it is you that needs to "take a look"
As stated in the NYT, (paraphrasing) there is only one documented case of Fracking tainting drinking water, and it was 25 years ago. Thousands of reserves have been tapped since, without a single (not one) incident of harming anything. And that stance is supported by many EPA officials.(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
There certainly is a great deal if illogical paranoia regarding it however.
The techniques have certainly improved in this 1 score and 5 years.
Damn those actual facts, and what I had actually stated eh?
"Environmentalists say hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is shot underground to blast apart rock and free fossil fuels -- is tainting drinking water." Who says it? It is propaganda.
I should - you have some very naughty thoughts!!!!
But .... so do I at times!
"52 million dollar cost to tax-payers, of course."
No amount of our money is a problem (for him).
Yours Jesse, regarding drilling on federal land is ignorant of the moratorium placed on drilling on federal land that has been in place since the Gulf disaster. Expect things to change in this regard....
White House proposes rules for drilling on federal lands
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/04/3937161/white-house-proposes-rules-for.html#storylink=cpy
Renee, "It is propaganda."
It's from the same source you used Renee.
"Again, the president has stated that he wants high gas prices. "
Could you point me to the source of this please?
Doesn't anybody care that Obama has stated before that he WANTS high gas prices? It is just not politically expedient to say that now, but it does not take away from his previous statements on the matter. Nobody wants dirty water or air, but the idea of throwing money into failed so-called green companies, while happily overseeing high gas prices to incentivise (manipulate) people to buy fuel efficient cars is not. the. solution.
"Yours Jesse, regarding drilling on federal land is ignorant of the moratorium placed on drilling on federal land that has been in place since the Gulf disaster."
No sir, I am not ignorant of it at all.
I am also not ignorant about the fact that SCOTUS declared the Moratorium illegal, and that after that, Mr. Obama simply slowed the issuance of permits, to a point, that the moratorium, was still in effect.
Mr. L, since you did not comprehend his comment either, implied that Obama had increased oil production "And yet under Obama drilling is way up.... "
Obama has not one iota of aiding in the added drilling, and production. None.
As to your reference link, yes they proposed something, finally. It is not adopted. And that has exactly what to do with current production?
I stated that production IS not up in federal land, and you divert and disparage me by referring to what may or may not happen in the future as proof that I am guilty of obfuscation?
You have now falsely accused me, of not being accurate, and are 100% wrong on both.
I will let Ms. Renee speak for herself, but I can guarantee that Mr Obama wants "energy costs to necessarily skyrocket", and has referenced European pricing as a way to control oil consumption, a well as appointed an individual that has stated that exact intent.
If you have even a semi-relative comment going forward, I will respond.
Otherwise, I will show all the attention it deserves.
= true
His point: "They reject any caution or concern about safety. "
By the way you've both judged this administration for the lack of drilling on federal land while reassessing the laws regarding both forms of drilling in light of the recent environmental mistakes also = true
However, I will concede that oil production is up, due to less consumption, due to financial pain.
Here is my view: We should use the resources we have in America while exploring green alternatives. If there are any to be found, Americans will find them. We need to be smart about it, and to go forward with integrity.
I disagree with the President's strategy of throwing money into failing companies while imposing stifling regulations on the energy industry and encouraging the high cost of energy. To me, his approach, while well-intentioned, is manipulative and harmful. My view. And I can back it up, I believe.
Essentially I agree and share the same views with most it, except our interpretations of "encouraging the high cost of energy". I've watched your video and read the transcript but disagree with your conclusion that him talking about the inevitability that energy costs will rise, equates with him "encouraging" it.
When you say, "I've watched your video and read the transcript but disagree with your conclusion that him talking about the inevitability that energy costs will rise, equates with him "encouraging" it.", I must say I am quite surprised. Many of Obama's statements have been in support of higher energy costs, and he has said in the past that his policies would make energy costs "necessarily skyrocket"... His goal is to wean people off of dependence on SUVs, on driving in general, on heating their houses how they see fit, etc. He has made no bones about it.
He has been clear, "We can't tell them, don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going say OK."
His "green" agenda trumps the economy and he will do anything in his power to continue with stimulus for failing companies, while tightening the reigns on energy companies by targeting them and enforcing impossible regulations.
He has stated, "So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them."
One of the most obvious examples is Energy Secretary Steven Chu was quoted in the Wall Street Journal in 2008, "Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work." At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing in March, Senator Mike Lee (R-Ut.) challenged Chu on his statements about the benefits of the high cost of fuel. He asked Chu, "So are you saying you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in America?" Chu responded, "I no longer share that view." The Obama-Appointed Energy Secretary has done a complete flip flop on his position.
You are too generous Ted.
"However, I will concede that oil production is up, due to less consumption, due to financial pain.
Here is my view: We should use the resources we have in America while exploring green alternatives. If there are any to be found, Americans will find them. We need to be smart about it, and to go forward with integrity."
They really can't put that stuff "back in the tube" once it's out there. Very revealing and informative.
But, you go ahead and keep trying to change the focus and divert attention from Obama's communistic policies since that's all you've got.
Well you would be wrong!
By opening up our country to greater exploration and production it would have an impact on prices....No matter your opinion.
Can we go back a few years and revisit the progressives blaming President Bush for the high gas prices while he was in office?
JJ: You're right in there with holocaust deniers and fake moon landing conspiracy theorists. I know you're comfortable there, so have at it.
OPT: The fact that you label president Obama a communist, means that you're already in a fact free zone, so the fact the it was this president that pulled capitalism's ass out of the fire in 2009 won't even register in whatever you might be using for a brain.
Drilling and oil production is at an all time high. The country's dependence on foreign oil has fallen. Both of these facts are a result of president Obama's administration policies. Oil companies are the most profitable companies to exist on this planet, and thanks to the Republicans, still receive a subsidy from the American taxpayers. The overall trend is in the right direction, not that I'd expect any of you to admit that. Same crap, different day.
From CNN;
""The price decline comes from lower crude oil prices," said publisher Trilby Lundberg.
That's good news for consumers, but it comes from a negative place, she said.
"Oil prices themselves are down because the oil market sees economic weakness in Europe and the United States, which is a negative for oil demand," said Lundberg.
The survey tabulates prices every two weeks at thousands of gas stations nationwide.
The average price nationally one year ago was just shy of $4 -- some 15 cents under the current average, Lundberg said."
Additionally, even if it were to the credit of Mr. Obama, I am not sure a 3% temporary reduction is a great deal to crow about.
Particularly since the last price spike (to $4.12 in June) was in the summer of 2008, and by December that year was back down ($1.61).
Since then, the price has not been below $2.61 (160% increase), and has been a approximate average of $3.61 (262% increase) for over a year. http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
I will not be scheduling any long distance trips, based on a 3% drop from a peak, when it is still well over than 250% higher
"Since then, the price has not been below $2.61... " should read "Since mid 2009, the price has not been below $2.61 ..."
Jesse: Particularly since the last price spike (to $4.12 in June) was in the summer of 2008, and by December that year was back down ($1.61). I REALLY dislike this little piece of cynicism. It's a particularly egregious example of misrepresenting data to support a false position.
What d'you suppose happened between June of 2008 and December of 2008 that resulted in that precipitous price drop? Do you think the world-wide economic debacle had anything to do with it? Hint: EVERY economist on the planet will answer, "Yes."
You may view it as cynisism if you choose, even tho it is not.
It was primarily the offset the erroneous rhetoric, that under Mr. Bush gas was $4 a gallon.
IF you go to the link I provided, and click on the 8 year chart (the longest they offer), you will see a mean price of approximately $2.61.
The spike happened over a 3 month period, and yes was a result of foreign actions, the same as the 6 month drop.
The point was made, many times, that it was ‘Over 4 bucks when Bush was in office’, as if it were a constant $4.00 or more the entire 8 years.
That is simply a lie.
The topic/premise of this particular article, is that prices are getting lower under Mr. Obama, and that is simply also a lie.
The mean price (again approximate) under Mr. Obamas term has been quite close to $3.00 per gallon, and during the past year, at least 15% higher than that, with a bottom (in the last year) around $3.25, and a peak of just over $4.00.
You are putting the ‘cynical’ footwear on the wrong persons feet.
Do you really presume yourself to speak for every "EVERY economist on the planet"?
That sir was simply rude, and an attempt to insult me.
Now would you care to discuss facts, or do you only desire to hurl jeering verbiage?
I got a laugh over the chorus of blame except that a lot of people bought it. Bunch of economics wizards we've got.
I totally agree.
The POTUS does not “control” the price of gasoline.
He is however, able to have some influence on domestic supply, which is a factor of pricing.
The best estimate is around 3.6MM square miles in the U.S.
Of that, The Federal Government owns about 30% (just over 1MM square miles)
When you view a map, a large amount of that, is in oil production areas.
By curtailing, restricting, and retarding the issuance of permits on Federal Land, other sources must become the supply, to a larger extent.
This puts the pricing more influenced by OPEC than need be.
There are many experts (not all obviously) that state we have more oil drilling capacity, than any country in the world.
Now the circus of partisan bantering seen above does nothing. If we want to approach a real solution to our energy problems, then the best approach I can think of is to get the oil money out of our political process. Then politicians - Obama and Romney and the senate and the house - can actually take an objective view of what can be done. Until then, however, what you get is the endless bickering - and that's what will weaken us as a nation.
Nissan Leaf
Mitsubishi MiEV
Chevy Volt
Tesla S
Ford Focus EV
And I gotta tell ya' - it's nice not pulling into gas stations.
Please see my agreement, in essentia above in response to Mr. Katz.
And now consider this.
There are indeed 2 paths to lowering prices.
You may decrease demand, or increase supply.
Hence the reason it is called “The law of Supply and Demand”, and not called “The Kinda-Maybe-Sorta Thoughts about Supply and Demand”.
And since many claim we have more than enough oil beneath our soil to be the number one producer of crude oil, and are already one of the primary refineries, why does the POTUS do all he can to diminish production, by (for all practical purposes) halt it on the 30% of U.S. land that has the most oil supply beneath it?
By not obtaining that crude, we are not only NOT the largest, we do not even make the top 10!
As long as you are talking about oil and gas, then you're already talking about a dying industry. If the U.S. is going to solve its energy problems, it is going to be done in fields related to efficiency and renewables. The cost of fossils goes up incrementally - the cost of renewables is coming down. With solar production processes dropping solar electricity to $0.40/watt and an outlook for a $200/kWh, 300 mile range electric battery within a couple of years, it will soon be the case that fossils are uncompetitive. So why would you pursue fossils? Btw, if you haven't test driven an electric car, do yourself a favor. Several are linked above - many more models are on the way. The automakers know where things are going.