We got mad at Bush for letting gas prices jump. What do we do now?

[Armstead]

The current gas extortion is kind of a test of intellectual consistency.

When something similar happened when Bush Jr. was in the White House I (we?)got really angry that the administration did n't do anything to stop the extortion through intervention such as price controls, or something, anything. One reason, we assumed, was because he was in bed with the oil industry, so naturally he would nt do much except maybe let little oil loose from the strategic reserve (and of course use it as an excuse to push for more offshore drilling and opening up more oil drilling in Alaska).

Now we're seeing a replay. Do we get mad at the current administration for not doing something to stop the gouging? Do we just accept it as another problem that can't really be be controlled?

[emulatorloo]

1. I don't remember being mad at Bush about gas prices

But maybe that's just me.

[BobbyBoring]

39. I do

If his family wasn't so involved in the biz, that would be one thing.

[okieinpain]

84. me either, but I did think it was funny that we invaded iraq to keep

gas prices low.

[sad sally]

88. not too funny to the soldiers and civilians who have died or are injured for life...

[tabasco]

106. Au contraire

We invaded Iraq to keep oil prices HIGH.

[okieinpain]

127. not to sure about that I thought that was the mantra that we would

be swimming in cheap oil.

[tabasco]

128. That's the idiot freeper mantra.

The Dick Cheney mantra was "sit on the oil and drive the price up."

[okieinpain]

131. that's probably true. n/t.

[OnyxCollie]

125. Except "we" weren't going to get the oil.

ExxonMobil, Conoco Phillips, and Chevron got it.

[Swede]

2. Bush released the strategic supply after Katrina,lowering prices 10%.

Obama is contemplating that.

[Ian David]

10. But when Obama does it, it will be SOCIALISM! n/t

[Zax2me]

60. I don't care what they call him,

As long as he does it!

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Hurricane Katrina caused an actual disruption in the oil supply

So far, there has been no disruption in the oil supply due to the unrest in the Middle East.

[Swede]

31. He is contemplating it to lower prices.

Just one option he is working on.

[Zax2me]

61. Yes there has

Speculative, but the markets don't discern what is real or speculative.
They see unrest, they see disruption.
Not fair but it is the world we live in.

[bobbolink]

113. You are correct. This is the work of speculators, pure and simple.

[Drale]

3. The difference I see

Is that Obama is trying to come up with solutions, Bush wanted prices up so that he and his masters could make billions.

[Horse with no Name]

4. I haven't seen solutions

Can you link that please?

[Statistical]

5. How exactly would any President have prices of a product produced (primarily) in foreign nations?

[DCKit]

6. There's a difference: Everything BushCo* engineered resulted in higher oil prices.

The current situation is due to internal turmoil in the ME... and a whole lot of speculation.

[Armstead]

9. It's the speculation and wholesale/retail side that is the problem.

What happens in the Middle East is a "reason." But so far, it has not resulted in any real disruptions to a degree that the proportion of price hikes would justify.

The jumps are based more on valid long-term concern and/or short term ripoffs by speculators and oil companies cashing in on the uncertainty.

What I wonder is why we allow ourselves to be placed under the thumb of that "whole lotta speculation" to such an extent.

[sad sally]

94. The huge profits oil companies are making off this whole lotta' speculation

is what the President should be addressing. I thought he wanted to end those billions of profits, subsidized, no tax paying, huge tax refunds the oil companies were all about. This would be a perfect chance for him to make good on his word. Put a moratorium on them being able to raise prices at the pumps - he could certainly do it. It could be for a short period - say one year. Make these companies prove they care about America's financial health, not just their own wealth.

[reformist2]

7. I hate to sound like a flack, but it is different this time.

In 2008 prices spiked because of excess speculation. Now it's due to instability in the Middle East.

Unlike the speculative commodity bubble of the Bush years, the recent wave of instability in the Middle East is not our doing (or so they say), and there's not much we can do about it except hope for a peaceful outcome.

[Armstead]

16. It's speculation based on maybe there being disruptions in oil supplies

Although there are obvious real causes for concern in the current Middle east, the actual potential impact on oil supplies in the near-term is being eclipsed by the same kind of speculation and taking-advanmtage-of-uncertainty that always gives rip-off artists an excuse to screw the public by goosing up prices.

[sabrina 1]

34. It is still speculation that is causing these price hikes. The Saudis

have compensated for any shortfall there might be as a result of the unrest in the region. So, there really is no reason for these price hikes other than an opportunity seen by speculators to profit from the events.

When this has happened in the past, Congress generally calls in the Oil Guys, wave their fingers at them, speak very sternly to them, while they, the Oil Guys, look annoyed and bored and then nothing happens. They make huge profits for as long as they can get away with it.

They should fined and taught a lesson but that won't happen. They run the world.

[Bandit]

8. Let's think a moment, within days after Republicans won control of the House

Gas prices begin to rise. Within days after Democrats took control of the Senate in 2006 Gas prices began to go down.. Not everything can be blamed on just Bush* since it is the Republicans that make most decisions and Bush* just said OK.....When Republicans have control the Average American gets screwed... Every single time throughout our Nation's history..

[rurallib]

29. Boehner as Speaker = no investigation nor Congressional action

"We're back in the chips" sayeth the oil moguls.
Yeah, i noticed the same phenomena

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. I remember noticing that pricies didn't start rising until after last November's elections

I thought that maybe part of it was because of holiday travel but the holidays are long over now and prices only seem to keep going up. Everybody's blaming instability in the ME even though they report that there's been no actual disruption in supply, just a whole of worrying about what MIGHT happen, which, of course, is partially due to the "speculation". :crazy: I hope that our leaders realize that the oil can't last forever in any circumstance.

[mod mom]

11. I blame the oil cartel just as I did w bu$h-oh wait he was part of the oil cartel.

[madinmaryland]

15. Ding, Ding, Ding!!! That's the answer!!

[Armstead]

21. Yes a big difference -- But there is an implied helplessness that empowers the cartels

[robdogbucky]

117. That and government watchdog type price regulators

were slashed almost in half by the current congress's budget.

We need more regulation and protection, not less, from the speculators and gougers.

[Democrats_win]

12. Obama has moved America to invest in alternative energy--Bush didn't.

Bush drove us deep into the Middle East quagmire which also drove oil prices higher. As Nine Inch Nails would say: we're "down in it." There's no point in attacking Obama. What we must do is set up guillotines and send the fraudsters to hell.

[Armstead]

19. Not attacking Obama -- Long term his policies are much better.

But right now, individuals and businesses are being held hostage by speculative fever, and the collective result may be to undermine the fragile "recovery" and to throw us back into the downward spiral of recession and/or depression.

Also, guillotines are a harsher metaphor than I would use. But at the least we should not allow ourselves to be so helpless in the face of the fraudsters.

[Terry in Austin]

13. It's that darned geology that needs getting mad at

Nothing personal -- global oil production has been flat since 2006. Industrial economies need it to increase constantly in order to grow. Demand outstrips supply.

It's what they call "peak oil."

Fun fact: just by saying this phrase aloud, you can empty a room in about thirty seconds!

B-)

[Armstead]

14. Yes that jolly old subject of peak oil

I know about that, and what a potentially depressing subject it is (or hopeful if we were to actually do something it).

Personally, I look it on two levels.

1)Yes, we do have to deal with the consequences of that, and regear society from out dependence on oil to alternative energy sources, smarter land-use policies, etc. However, that is a long-term project.

2)In the meantime, despite our wasteful side, we are still dependent on the black goo to keep things running -- both personally and socially. So, in the shorter term, we should at least have enough protections in place so that we afre not so much at the mercy of either the Fear Factor and/or Ripoffs that occur whenever there is some excuse to instantly jack up the prices.

[liberal N proud]

18. Bu$h and Cheney were part of the oil cabal

They kissed ass and held hands with the prince of Saudi Arabia.

Additionally, the factors that caused the prices to rise during the bu$h regime were all superficial and caused by the oil companies here in the US. This round of increases are completely external and out of our control.

Yes, if there was something Obama could do, I wish he would do it soon.

[former9thward]

25. Katrina was caused by the oil companies?

[gratuitous]

20. I'm totally consistent

I'm willing to get mad at Bush all over again. In fact, I don't know that I ever stopped.

[Democrats_win]

23. One of the best responses ever on DU!

[Armstead]

37. LOL -- Good one....But I am talking about intellectual honesty

I am not putting myself above this myself.

Speaking for myself, I believed the Bush administration was able -- if not willing -- to intervene in the market to stave off what was an emergency situation then. I got mad because he allowed the speculators and Big Oil to find new and creative excuses to rip us off.

So now what? Do I get mad at Obama for the same reason. (Especially when the emergency is greater because it threatens the fragile beginning of recovery we are seeing.)

[Hutzpa]

22. Dick Chaney was the Vice President

who was as we all know in bed with the oil companies. He was the Chairman of Halliburton, that's
were most of our anger came from, and most of us knew then that Dick Chaney is not and will not
seek the interest of the American public.

[villager]

24. the question is salient enough to warrant the usual furtive unrec

which must mean, it's a good question!

[pansypoo53219]

26. georgee made the mess by invading iWaq,

obama did not invade egypt or libya. and he isn't gonna invade saudi arabia. but will amerikkkans understand we can't drill our way out of this?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. "we" did? Were "we" under the mistaken impression that we're entitled to endless, cheap gas?

That's odd. Because I seem to remember that "we" understood then, as "we" understand now, that oil is a finite resource that is also environmentally destructive, and "we" better get our heads around the fact that it's not going to get cheaper. Ever.

There comes a time when the addict either continues to be at the mercy of the dealer, or puts down the crack pipe.

[Armstead]

41. There is a difference between long-term and short term

In the big picture I totally agree with you.

But in present reality, we have to deal with the impacts on the situation as it exists now. And, unfortunately -- as much as we might all want to see more conservation, alternative energy sources, etc. -- in the present, most Americans have to rely on oil and gas to get around, go to work, keep from freezing to death, etc. and most businesses (no matter how enlightened they may be) are also dependent on oil for their own operations and on impact of the price of gas on the overall economny.

Therefore, while we should all support those worthy long term goals, TODAY people are in danger of freezing, losing their jobs, losing their businesses etc. because of this situation right now.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Crack addict finds crack rock in couch cushions. Crack problem solved!

Anyway, gas is still there, it's just slightly more expensive than it was before.

The process of getting FROM the short term to the long term is going to be painful. If we only focus on making the short term easy, we will NEVER get to the long term.

I can only imagine the heads that explode every time Tom Friedman or someone else calls for a dollar a gallon gas tax. How did we get the fuel efficient cars of the 70s? Expensive gas. That's what did it. How did we get the SUV "revolution" of the 80s? Cheap gas. That's what did it.

[Armstead]

51. Again I don't disagree -- But if the couch crack is necessary to prevent....

another economic freefall and untold amounts of human misery, I say we put up with it for now.

Again, I am not disagreeing with your basic goal -- but to use your comparison, it is better to let an addict withdraw in a way that he survives, rather than killing him in the process.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. And you think gas going up 10 cents is going to kill the American People?

I don't.

[Armstead]

77. "Kill" may be a bit too stong but.....

If you look at both the impact of the added costs of living on individuals and operating for business -- especially in light of the current shaky economic situation -- combined with the related dampening of spending and other activity, it has the potential to cause a lot of serious damage.

Maybe rather than use the word "kill" a more appropriate phrase would be either avoid driving the addict crazy, or causing irreparable harm to their health.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Enabling addicts doesn't help them.

It's never a "good time" to kick a habit.

[William769]

28. Some answers in this thread is what is actually wrong with the Democratic party. NT.

[ecstatic]

30. On one hand, yes; but other countries are paying way more than we are

and keeping prices low encourages us to buy more SUVs (which ends up adding to the problem).

[Armstead]

42. There is a difference between positive incentives and punishing the innocent

I realize I may be using the term "innocent" loosely, but for example, I drive a very thrifty, gas-saving car, but within the last year the cost of filling the tank has skyrocketed.

I don't think allowing speculators and avaricious oil companies to get even richer off the misery of others is the correct for of positive incentive that we need to correct the larger problem.

[hugo_from_TN]

32. I was never mad about it.

It's a dwindling resource and prices are going to rise higher and higher in the future.

[WolfoftheWild]

33. any excuse to be mad at Obama, right?

[Armstead]

44. Any excuse to defend Obama, eh? How about answering the question instead

[RegieRocker]

59. More like any excuse on why you shouldn't be mad at Obama

right? Oh no, some are dissatisfied with our savior. Any time that one cannot voice their concerns with a leader, especially if they voted for him or her, then that also is a major problem. It certainly isn't what democracy is about.

[Pisces]

102. Some of you want to think he is a saviour. That is a rightwing meme. No one on the left thought he

was the messiah.

[RegieRocker]

107. You protect him like he is your savior. You know what my point was.

Do not examine nor critique my savior.

[Texasgal]

35. People must have very short memories..

Gas prices go up EVERY spring/summer.

Happened last year, and the year before that...

[Armstead]

45. Not this much or this early

..And that still doesn't justify gouging

[Pisces]

103. Short memory and low pain thresholds.

[blindpig]

36. Good for the goose, good for gander. n/t

[ParkieDem]

38. Because he can't do much about it.

For all the talk about conspiracies and the like, oil prices and gasoline prices in turn are set by the global market. Even the major oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and the like have miniscule control over prices when compared to the state-owned OPEC giants.

[Thunderstruck]

40. I'm sick of this shit. I want you to show me how the price of gas is extortion. I'll be waiting.

[Armstead]

48. Um, we have unrest in the middle east that has almost no IMMEDIATE effect on supplies

and yet the price skyrockets almost immediately.

They call it "unease" over the future. But the fact is that is that "market players" are suddenly getting a lot more for the same commodity, despite the fact that it is not currently any scarcer in the real world.

It is not the same as, say, a damaging growing season that depletes the supply of corn, with a scarcity of supply pushing the price upward.

This is based on mind-games.

[Thunderstruck]

50. That is not proof of your assertion. I want you to explain to me the dynamics

involved in the pricing of gas and point out the part where the gouging takes place.

Still waiting...

P.S.: The challenge stands for anyone, especially any commodities traders or oil company execs who may see this.

ETA: You mention the price is going up despite oil not being any scarcer. Show the production numbers for oil. Export numbers will be good too.

[Armstead]

52. I'm not going to play that useless game again. Sorry.

Over the years, I have engaged in too many of these useless "Show us the facts" runarounds.

It is a common strategy of conservatives and/or other defenders of the status quo.

"Show me the facts to prove it." So one provides facts and does other due diligence and comes back with supporting details.

But then (rather than actually engaging in an actual exchange of ideas and information) the conservative/status quo poster always finds "reasons"to immediately reject them. The source is "not reliable" or "biased" or something else.

So then it merely becomes "No that's not good enough. Show me proof."

Rinse and repeat process. Same response. No facts are ever "good enough" and usually are not even challenges with contrary "facts" to disprove it.

Usually, people who sincerely disagree or are open to an honest discussion seldom say "show me the facts." Instead, they actually provide a rational counter-argument.

But the ones who retreat to "prove it" usually don't have a factual counter argument except their own gut feelings

Sorry. I don't have time to play that one. feekl free to provide whatever "information" you have that you believe shows that I'm wrong. But I'm not going to get into a ping-pong match of "Oh yeah-- "sez you"

[Thunderstruck]

54. Yep, that's what I thought. And also, so now I'm a conservative because I ask you

to prove your assertion instead of letting you get away with attempting to pass your unfounded opinion as fact? Ooookayyyyyy....

The next time you want to make a statement like you did in the OP, you might want to have actually researched the issue yourself instead of just coming to your own conclusions or passing along ones fed to you.

[Armstead]

67. I said conservative OR defender of the status quo -- There are common patterns

A real conservastive may be different than someone who considers themselves a "pragmatic moderate" or even a "pragmatic liberal."

But there are certain predictable key words and debating strategies that are common to both...Including words like "reality" and "adult" and "utopian" and "purist" and some variation on "unfounded opinion" are often pretty good predictors. So are words like "research."

There is information out there to support the notion that we do not have to lie back and take it, and that there are remedies to deal with situations where speculators and oil companies take advantage of issues to artificially inflate the "market" and their profits.

I've seen plenty of it, but it is a waste of time to go out and lose an hour or two to gather and organize it for you -- especially when it is likely to be met with the predictable response of "No show me more."

And this is a message board, and we all give our opinions, even when we are not "experts" in a certain subject. That's the nature of a discussion board.

If you don't like my "unfounded opinions" please feel free to either provide "facts" to support your objections, or else just ignore it. Either is fine with me.

[fascisthunter]

99. Price of gas trumped up by speculators

[The Straight Story]

111. Libya's supply of oil =1.7% of demand. Prices rise higher than at. Oil is still flowing

:shrug:

[tridim]

43. BushCo and CheneyCo made lots of money when gas prices were manipulated.

ObamaCo doesn't.

[Zax2me]

63. But Obama is in the White House

not Bush.
Hence the OP's point.

[tridim]

66. The OP asked why were were mad then and not now. That's why.

[K8-EEE]

46. Bush campagned on his "special relationships" with Saudis & oil companies

And then pretty much worked to their advantage exclusively.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. What do we do now?

[rdking647]

53. a solution

i have a few ideas on how to reduce gas prices.

#1. margins.. currently the margin requirement for a brent crude or a WTI crude contract is less than 6k. this is on a contract with a value of 105 or 117k depending on the product. for somethin so important to the worlds economy this should be raised. make it 20% of the contract price.. this would knock out a large bunch of the speculators..
#2. enforce a no fly zone in libya
#3 sell some of the stragtegic reserve. literally force the price down..
right now the supply of WTI is about as high as it ever has been. so crude prices are artificially high..
these 3 steps would force oil back town $15 in a day or 2

[Armstead]

68. Thank you for an informative reply

[rdking647]

96. im a former trader

so i know how the market works.. It actually doesnt take much to push the market around...

[dbt]

55. Of course, we give him ANOTHER pass.

:evilgrin:

[Yo_Mama]

56. It can't really be controlled!

With the cost of oil over $100 a barrel, gas is going to be expensive. Refinery costs can go up somewhat, but in general a cracked barrel of oil gives you 15 to 20 gallons of gas, plus other stuff like heavy oils and volatiles like kerosene. So output of total product is probably around 40 gallons.

If light sweet crude is selling at 105-110 USD/barrel, that means about 55 dollars per 19 gallons, make it twenty, so the materials cost is going to be somewhere between $2.50 and $2.75 a gallon of gas. Refinery needs some profit and there's some processing cost. Then add transport cost, which go station by station and vary widely across the country and within states. Then add maybe 8-15 cents a gallon for the gas station. Then add tax. Taxes on gasoline vary widely by state. Fed tax is still $0.184 a gallon, I believe. State and local taxes and imposts vary hugely. The net is usually between 40-60 cents a gallon.

Saudi crude is cheaper, but you have more processing cost and get less gasoline out of it.

Anyway, I hope this is enough to convince you that you were wrong to blame Bush and you'd be wrong to blame Obama. You can't control prices when these are profit margins you have. Releasing crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be stupid; we are at war and the ME stability is the problem. We may need it later.

The last surge was quite speculative. This one is a bit less so at current prices, but some hot money is getting into it. Because the US doesn't control oil buyers around the world, it probably can't contain these speculative surges well. US exchanges tend to be more controlled than the European exchanges, for example (think ICE). However with stock prices falling everywhere, sooner or later the speculators will get cold feet. We do not have a supply problem right now. We have a worry problem, a stockpiling problem and a speculative problem. The actions of the Fed in QE2 caused some of this and have devalued the dollar, which is causing the USD price of oil to rise also.

One notable thing after the NG speculation is that natural gas prices haven't run up in tandem (we produce almost all NG we use right now) and that the result of the Amaranth investigation may have induced some caution there:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MinorityNews&ContentRecord_id=6772d782-62aa-4aa5-bcc8-61d60dd99c39

Supporting links:
Bloomberg energy page (shows oil spot and gas futures)

Basics of cracking:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_gasoline_can_be_made_from_one_barrel_of_crude_oil

Gas Taxes:
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

ICE, CFTC and global oil speculation (article from 2008, but it covers all the basics)
http://oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Speculation/oil_speculation.HTM
The interesting thing about this one is that the spec portion of the price given was very close to the eventual result when the crash finally hit.

[Armstead]

69. Thank you for a reasoned reply

There is probably much truth in your analysis.

Nevertheless, as you noted, "We do not have a supply problem right now. We have a worry problem, a stockpiling problem and a speculative problem."

It seems to me that even in a global economy, we should have some mechanisms in place to prevent those artificial forces from potentially wrecking lives and the overall economy.

In my opinion, shame on us as a nation for not have any effort to develop a contingency "emergency plan" to cushion us from such inevitable shocks -- especially since we've been periodically subjected to them since the 1970's.

[Yo_Mama]

81. Exactly what do you suggest?

The SPR is supposed to hold oil for months of import dislocation. It is never going to be effective in a time of rising prices, high stocks, steady supplies and supply worries.

The worry part is natural, not artificial. Everyone is wondering what happens in Saudi Arabia.

The 2008 party-like-it's-2013 showed that as long as you dump the money in, no reality constraints can prevent prices from rising.

The Fed's QE2 infusion of 600 billion has quite a bit to do with this. There was almost no place for that much money to go but into commodities. The accompanying stock gains further fed the money pool. However the Fed is independent of Congress and the President, so I hardly feel like blaming Obama for not calling out the National Guard to make them stop it. Personally, I LIKE a president who knows he's not supposed to be a dictator. That's pretty much all that stands between us and Libya, and I'd rather live here than there.

The ME unrest is real, and for decades our military has had plans to deal with the Saudi regime crumbling.

The only thing you can really do is increase local production, but letting prices rise is the best short term way to do this. If these prices hold another six months some of the Canadian projects which were stopped will pick up. I read the Bundesbank's reports each month; they obviously figured the commodity prices would end when QE2 did. Now, with the ME unrest it is not so certain.

I think the stock price falls will slowly drain enough money from the system to take care of the speculators. There is not a consensus between Europe and other regulators on ICE, so it is not clear that further commodity regulation can be effective. Letting speculators lose money will be. However one of the reasons for today's jump were comments emanating from the Fed (Lockhart) about how it would be ready to dump even MORE money in to prop things up if it were necessary:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/07/news/economy/Lockhart_Fed_QE3/

Undoubtedly this was meant to address the stock losses; for the people throwing money into commodities, it was a green light.

One could, and I would, lift some of the US off-shore production restrictions along with stricter regulations and an excise-tax funded increase in regulatory manpower. Still that won't take care of a short-term price rise like this. In two to three years you would see higher domestic production. I think the ME unrest will last that long, which is why I think the time is now to do that. But it won't have any effect on the short-term, and it may cause the Saudis to sharply increase production and dump product in order to drop prices enough to stop the new fields opening. They've done it before.

In the short term, what's going to happen is that the Saudis will pump plenty of product because they need the money to pay off their people and prop up their regime.

The stock-piling is a normal response to the worries about a Saudi supply problem. But commodities started their epic rise long before this blew up, and it was synchronized with QE2's announcement and then delivery by the Fed. So unless the Fed says it ain't gonna play no more, this situation is going to go on for a few more months at least. If the Fed doubles down, it could be GD2.

There is a bubble element to this, and the only thing that stops bubbles is buyer exhaustion. As long as the Fed pumps money in, this will go on. The ME situation is not going to be short-term. It's a response to inflation, mostly, and poor jobs and high unemployment. I believe many of us can sympathize greatly.

[Armstead]

122. General ideas

You are a lot more expert than I in the workings of markets, so pardon if this seems too general and conceptual. (I have been paying attention for a long time, but I can't balance my own checkbook.)

What IMO is needed is a break from our total subservience to market forces in these situations. There are remedies, but
the fallback positions is always to "wait for the market to correct itself" but as we have seen over the years, that does not always happen -- and much damage is done in the meantime.

Instead, I believe the government can and should be more proactive.I am not talking about ongoing "socialist" control of markets on an ongoing basis. But emergency steps that would be used to control excessive speculation and profit-taking when the price of an essential commodity like oil reaches excessive levels, especially when it happens rapidly.

First we have to identify at what point those forces are undermining the overall economy and social good, and which of them are "gettable" by legal policies. Over the last couple of months, the price of oil spiked, even though basic access has not changed. Therefore, someone is making boatloads of money along the line.

Some of these may be out of our direct control because they are on international markets. Others are within our control because they are within the domestic economy. Windfall profit taxes, temporary price controls or similar measures, plus on an underlying basis to finally reassert some anti-trust and anti-monopolistic regulation.

I could get more specific but can't due to time and space constraints here. My short answer is that (in addition to the obvious long-term goal of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels) we should put in place legal measures and disincentives for excessive and harmful speculation that can be applied when triggered by such situations.,

[thereismore]

58. I am still mad at him. nt

[Rex]

62. Well if you get mad at Obama, prepare to be bombarded with

how you are just playing right into the hands of the GOP with that attitude. Personally, I think they got nothin...but thought a warning was in order. I don't expect anything from the POTUS, and so far he has delivered nothing but promises. Why would this be any different then all the other mistakes he has made? I'm not mad at him, just nodding my head that this is business as usual and we should get use to it. Price gouging is a way of life now in America, this country is all about screwing over the workforce.

[taught_me_patience]

64. We should be mad at ourselves for squanderin a precious resource

with our wasteful consumption. Afterall, there are millions of Americans who NEED to drive 15mpg trucks in order to haul a refridgerator every ten years.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Shhhhh!

You're interfering with the righteous anger of folks ENTITLED to an endless, cheap supply of a finite, environmentally deleterious resource!

[Zax2me]

65. Maybe blame game goes beyond who occupies White House

Then and now.
The mess doesn't start/end/happen there 100% so blaming Obama admin now is not the right road.

[Armstead]

71. I agree with you partially

Obama is not to blame for this current mess. It is a systemic (and political failing) that -- despite recurrences of this -- we have not developed contingency plans to deal with these situations, even tho0ugh we have been subjected to this crap since the 1970's.

We should have come up with a way to prevent speculative oil pirates from hijacking the economy by now. But, since we haven't, we ought to at least be figuring out ways now.... I do not believe that ignoring it, or shrugging shoulders and saying "There's nothing we can do" yet again is an appropriate response.

[dkofos]

70. Sure feels like he is still there.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. ***

[Pisces]

75. Gas prices around the world are higher than our gas. We do not pay the going rate. I am not mad,

just driving less.

[Armstead]

82. And busiuness and individuals will have less...and our economy will be more crippled

Driving less in not a luxury for everyone, unfortunately. Nor is keeping the house at a livable temperature. And the added costs of energy will be further passed along to the already beleaguered consumer -- thus putting further downward pressure on a reasonable (not extravagant) standard of living.

And also,m we are not as well equipped to hanlde high driving costs as nations with decent mass transportation, more concentrated (non suburban) land use patterns, etc.

As I said, I agree with you about the longer term. But we're having a hard enough time keeping the economy from off the cliff without that added straw being added to the camel's back.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. I usually agree with you, Armstread, but here I'm going to have to disagree

The oil companies play games with us, and the only way to control them is to stop playing their game.

Not everyone can reduce their driving, but MANY people can and don't. ("That's two blocks away. I'll have to drive.")

Not everyone can keep their houses cooler in the winter or warmer in the summer, but MANY people can and don't. (I have an apartment neighbor who turns on the AC and shuts the windows as soon as the temperature hits 75. It's amazing to approach one's building on a gorgeous spring day and hear the AC humming from Mr. Wimp's window.)

As long as we ALL play helpless and say, "I can't change anything," they've got us over a literal barrel.

[Armstead]

118. Ah well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one -- sort of

I basically agree with your underlying point. We do tend to waste a lot of energy needlessly....I'll admit I'm guilty of that sometimes, although I try to be good.

However I do think that we live in a society that has been so geared to energy use that it really is a hardship for many people, beyond the wasteful aspects. As this winter has shown, if you don't have access to heat, you may have a short lifespan....Likewise for those who have to drive some distance for work, a car is not a luxury, but a necessity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. I wasn't talking about such people

Having had recent experience with elderly relatives, I know that they NEED the thermostat turned up. And I know that our country is built on the assumption that everyone over the age of 16 has a car.

The point is that the number of people who COULD modify their habits is probably larger than the ones who absolutely could not.

[Armstead]

123. I don't disagree with that...but I'd say....

That people who eat to live (everyone) shouldn' t all be penalized because some people are gluttons....or something like that.

[Armstead]

119. Ah well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one -- sort of

I basically agree with your underlying point. We do tend to waste a lot of energy needlessly....I'll admit I'm guilty of that sometimes, although I try to be good.

However I do think that we live in a society that has been so geared to energy use that it really is a hardship for many people, beyond the wasteful aspects. As this winter has shown, if you don't have access to heat, you may have a short lifespan....Likewise for those who have to drive some distance for work, a car is not a luxury, but a necessity.

[ProSense]

76. "When something similar happened when Bush Jr. was in the White House "

Vice President Biden had a secret energy task force?

Oh brother.

[Rex]

79. You must have missed the word similar.

[ProSense]

83. What's similar

What did VP Biden do that was simlar to Cheney?

[Rex]

He is VP and not doing anything to stop it?

Funny how the OP is about Bush and doesn't mention Cheney...but you knew that already.

[ProSense]

90. So why did you respond that I missed the word "similar"

when my comment was: "Vice President Biden had a secret energy task force?"

[Rex]

91. Because I thought you didn't know what the word meant.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

93. You obviously don't. n/t

[Rex]

97. No I do that is why I pointed it out to you.

Don't be embarrassed.

[Armstead]

86. It's not about Biden or Cheney

Believe it or not, this is a much bigger issue than that

[Rex]

87. Distraction from the point.

A weak ploy imo.

[ProSense]

92. "Believe it or not, this is a much bigger issue than that" The point is

that this statement

"When something similar happened when Bush Jr. was in the White House I (we?)got really angry that the administration did n't do anything to stop the extortion through intervention such as price controls"

...makes no sense. People were outraged about the energy task force and its implications. They weren't angry at Bush for not stopping the extortion. They were angry at his administration for enabling it.

Your argument that this is much bigger would have been better served without the attempts to compare Obama to Bush.

[Rex]

98. Actually I was mad at Bush for not stopping the extortion.

So I guess that makes you wrong. :shrug:

[ProSense]

100. "So I guess that makes you wrong. " No

it makes it clear that you have an opinion.

[Rex]

104. ROFL!

Amazing! :rofl:

No your own words prove you wrong, sorry.

[ProSense]

109. Actually,

I wouldn't be laughing if I were you. "People" is a generic term.

"People were outraged about the energy task force and its implications. They weren't angry at Bush for not stopping the extortion. They were angry at his administration for enabling it."

The statement doesn't say "you" were outraged. It also doesn't imply that everyone shared the outrage because Republicans sure didn't.

You words are your opinion. There was nothing wrong about my statement.

[Rex]

110. Yes your statement is wrong, by your own wording.

Sorry but it is true even if you don't want it to be.

[Armstead]

85. To quote the other reponse...."You must have missed the word similar"

The price of oil and gas has spiked drastically upward extremely fast. Similar situation.

I don't recall saying Obama has the same kind of ties to Big Oil as Bush and Cheney. Big difference.

But I did say that at the time there was a lot of bitching here and elsewhere (including by myself) about how rampant speculation was being allowed with no challenge or real effort to use some sort of strategy to reduce the damage to average people and the economy.

[Rex]

105. He cleared that up for us...he didn't know what the word meant

and was wrong. You can read his own words to see that. :rofl:

[kentuck]

78. As I recall...

Gas prices went up just before the Republican Congress was defeated in 2006? Once the Democrats gained control of the Congress, gas prices dropped dramatically. They had gone above 4.00 per gallon.

Did they drop out of fear of a gas tax or some other penalty?? Who knows? Maybe the fears were unfounded? Nonetheless, when the Republicans took over Congress again last year, gas prices started up again. Sheer coincidence?

[JI7]

80. i don't remember "we" being mad at Bush for that

i remember people mostly went after the SUV drivers and lack of support for alternative energy.

[Shagbark Hickory]

89. It's still George Bush's fault. He started tipped the first domino. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. My response is to drive as little as possible

I realize that this is not possible for everyone, but I would remind people that when they move to a new community or relocate within their old one, they should consider accessibility without a car (walking distance to stores and services, location on a transit line) as MAJOR factors in selecting a new neighborhood.

Don't follow the current (asinine) idea that the most desirable place to live is a tickytack McMansion development in the middle of a former cornfield with nothing but big box stores around and an hour's drive to work.

[LanternWaste]

108. If and only if the causes are the same.

"The current gas extortion is kind of a test of intellectual consistency."

If and only if the causes are the same.

[JoePhilly]

112. What monetary benefit will Obama, Biden, or their families see?

The run up under Bush was a PAY OFF. The fact that it hurt the economy was not the main goal.

This time ... Obama and Biden gain nothing. The fact that it hurts the economy is the main goal.

[LawnKorn]

115. Some of us applauded Carter's energy policies, and got mad at Reagan for the current policies

George Bush #43 never had an original thought in his life and whose policy it was to just maintain the status quo.

It was President Carter who foresaw the energy crisis this country was about to undergo, followed by Reagan who undid all of Carter's alternative energy programs and addicted us completely to oil.

Some of us here are still mad at Reagan; Bush was just a flunky who was mouthing the words.

[Exultant Democracy]

116. Bush's choice to go into Iraq caused turmoil middle east. Obama didn't cause this turmoil

I think the difference is pretty obvious.

[Lasher]

120. That was different. GWB had campaigned on keeping gas prices low.

He was highly critical of Clinton, on account of gas prices that were in effect at the time of the 2000 presidential campaign. Then when gas prices went much higher during his own presidency, he was appropriately called out by some enlightened individuals for his hypocrisy.

Obama has not made false claims about an ability to keep prices low, and that's the difference.

[dionysus]

124. we'd have to get some kind of anti-gouging bill through congress wouldn't we?

[walldude]

126. The rest of the world pays upwards of 6 bucks a gallon

I hardly think we have much room to complain...

[Iggo]

129. Actually, no I didn't.

When gas prices harassed the 5 dollar mark here in California, the SUV's were parked and the little cars came out.

That was a good thing.

[mochajava666]

130. Call it multi-dimensional chess and say it's a good thing

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption" GW Bush, 9/23/2002

Much as Obama pisses me off, they're not the same.

[RedCloud]

133. I tell veryone its a Republican tax hike so they can bribe Congress to make higher prices!

[Johnny2X2X]

134. Difference

The difference is the Bush regime being nearly synonymous with the Oil Companies. There isn't that perception with the Obama administration. Bush practically was the oil companies.