Limbaugh asserted that "gas prices didn't start going through the roof till [Democrats] took over the House in 2006"
SUMMARY: Referring to criticism of President Bush by Dick Gephardt over rising gas prices, Rush Limbaugh asserted: "[G]as prices didn't start going through the roof till [Democrats] took over the House in 2006." In fact, average monthly gasoline prices (adjusted for inflation) began to climb several years before Democrats took control of Congress.
On the May 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh, in reference to criticism of President Bush by former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt over rising gas prices, asserted: "[G]as prices didn't start going through the roof till your buddies took over the House in 2006." In a May 10 speech at the Missouri Democratic convention, Gephardt reportedly said: "George Bush is, by far, the worst person who's ever been president of the United States. ... Gas is $4 a gallon, on its way to $8 a gallon, and this man sits there, clueless."
In fact, according to data from the Energy Information Administration, depicted in the graph below, average monthly gasoline prices (adjusted for inflation) began to climb several years before Democrats took control of Congress, and have continued to climb since then.
From the May 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: "Ike Skelton, Democrat from Lexington" -- which is outside Kansas City -- "is a Clinton supporter, sought to ease concerns from the Obama camp about his decision Friday to go public with his concerns about Obama's electability." You know, a lot of people have started to do this now. Well, not a lot, but there's some starting to be concerned here about Obama's electability.
"Richard Gephardt, another Clinton supporter, won the strongest ovation at the Missouri State Democrat [sic] Convention, when he said this: 'George Bush is, by far, the worst person who's ever been president of the United States. Gasoline is $4 a gallon, on its way to $8 a gallon, and this man sits there, clueless.' "
Hey, Little Dick, all well and good, but these gas prices didn't start going through the roof till your buddies took over the House in 2006. And remember, this is supposedly why we elected Democrats to the House of Representatives two years ago. They were going to fix this. They had a plan to bring gas prices down, and we haven't seen the plan, Little Dick. Sit there and blame it on Bush. I mean, through six years of the Bush administration, oil was low, gas was low for the most part. Only when the Democrats got in there did the world markets panic and start going through the roof.
"In an interview" -- here's the last paragraph of the story -- "in an interview, [Sen.] Claire McCaskill simply smiled when she was asked if Obama's choice of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, for tomorrow's stop had some particular significance." She just smiled.
1) Correlation is not causality.
2) According to Rush's own words he attributes the election of Democrats to Congress in 2006 to their promises to try to control escalating energy prices. But, again according to Rush's own words, if there wasn't a problem until after the Democrats were elected, how could they possibly have run on promises to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Does being a dittohead mean never having to understand what logic is?
this is on freerepublic, which is right wing, but it's remarks by robert kennedy junior. he notes that we could eliminate imports from the persian gulf by raising fuel effeciency standards by 7.6 mpg. but that's something rush and his republican pals in congress have always opposed. The reason we have the standards we do now is because of carter and the democratic congress. [and don't anyone give me the spiel about how they were the highest during the reagan administration, that's when the carter standards took full effect. nothing to do with st. ronnie.]
in the past, whenever raising the standards has come up, it's always been a majority of democrats voting for and a majority of republicans voting against. rush has always mocked the idea of fuel effecient vehicles. he's always insisted it was your american right to drive the biggest gas hog you could afford. and now that we're in the jam we are now in, he takes no reponsibility for an attitude he helped promote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863207/posts
Doesn't war tend to raise oil prices? Doesn't war in the heart of the world's richest oil region tend to raise oil prices ALOT?
Oh, that's right - we're not supposed to talk about the "war", are we Rush?
Not to mention today's statement by Iran to cut oil production - thus raising prices and decreasing supply.
I think we should get our armoried fleet and march straight to the capital of Saudi Arabia and Iran, must like the Israelis did when marching to Cairo.
Show us that you've got a pair and march down to the enlistment office.
Stop running your mouth and for once in your life lead instead of following.
Thanks for the rant. I am 28 and actually in the National Guard, and have been for 8 years. I will not go full time military due to raising my 6 year old niece because of an extremely sad traffic accident that caused my sisters death.
I hope you swallow your tongue.
Rush is a drug addict and a pig.
If I recall, he did commercials saying that if you buy drugs illegally, you support terrorists. He bought them illegally, he supports terrorism. Who listens to a non-admitting drug addict? DittoDum and DittoDee.
Them Saudis...maybe we can get Shrub's daddy to talk to them for us. ;>)
Shrub's daddy HAS been talking to them - for years now. In fact, he was having breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in DC with Osama Bin Laden's brother on 9/11 as the planes were crashing.....
Columbus,
That is great you are helping with your niece. I am glad you were able to step up, and I hope you support those who want to extend benefits to those who have served.
Columbus, he is not supporting it as of present time
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-urges-mccain-to-sign-onto-gi-bill-2008-03-19.html
Bush doesn't support it either. He thinks it will cause some to leave the military for civilian life.
Bush doesn't support it either. He thinks it will cause some to leave the military for civilian life.
Wow, guess you can't have people actually trying to live normal lives these days. Just gotta keeping warrin' and killin' and bombin'.
Did I hear someone say "draft"?
But you still want to send other fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles and even grandparents to fight new wars when we haven't wrapped up the two we've started.
If they can go, why not you?
An excuse for what? Sacrificing the lifestyle and goals that I had in life to fulfill the promises I made when accepting the offer to be her god-father?
She is 6 years old. I have no grandparents left, and only 1 parent left. And no brothers/sisters. I am doing what I need to do to give her the things my sister would have wanted - working two jobs to pay for private school, a college fund, etc.
I hate to tell you man, but I've done my fair share - more than many of you here have. I volunteered to go to NO to help with Katrina, as well as went to NYC to help cleanup of the 9-11 tragedy.
Dont give me this whole "use an excuse" b.s. I have been, and am, fulfilling my obilatigation to this country and to my family. More than many of all of you who sit around and play the partisan game while spending your free time defending people like Rev. Wright for his hate speech and telling others they should change their lifestyle to fit your wants.
I accused him of hate speech, for what it is.
There's hate speech in virtually everything you post here, Columbus.
I'm not saying that what you're doing isn't admirable. You should be proud of what you've done and of the extra responsibilities you've taken on.
You've done more than most, but that doesn't change the fact that you want others, who've got the same responsibilities you've got, if not greater responsibilities, to fight in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Agreed 100%.
You've just made a great argument for public financing of elections. Cut the special interest money out of it!
If we were talking about healthcare you could make the same argument and it would also be a great argument for public financing.
So then you agree that by drilling off the coast, anwr, and ND that we could potentially start on a track of domestic oil dependency until alternatives are available. This would ease the american citizen pocketbook, alleviate the thought of war for oil, and give ourselves time to move on to alternatives.
Obviously, Columbus, you've forgotten that your boy George W. helped ban offshore drilling off the Florida coast a few years ago in order to help his brother Jeb win re-election as Florida's governor...
That brings up an interesting point when it comes to drilling and also with nuclear power. Everyone seems to be in favor of it unless it is going to be near them.
Florida is in no way a liberal or very environmentally friendly state. But even their citizens did not want any drilling off of their coast, to the point where the republican governor had to pander to their wishes. Apparently it's ok only if it takes place somewhere else and someone else has to live with the consequences.
I agree.
Rush Limbaugh has been beating the drum for nuclear power a lot lately. I wonder how fast he'd change his tune if they decided to build a nuclear plant next to his bunker/mansion in Florida.....
I just said no excuses...others are in your position. Just don't promote others to carry on wars while you do what you SHOULD do..taking care of your niece. But DO NOT sit behind a keyboard and promote killing others.
I commend you for what you are doing..not what you are saying.
corrupt countries who are purposely strapping down American citizens.
So when does the invasion of the RNC begin?
I hope you swallow your tongue.
And we hope the same for YOU, Columbus. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, using your niece and your dead sister as excuses for soewing your lies and venom here. Why don't you just take some personal responsibility for the crap you post, and stop advocating wars that would be fought by others when you have no intention of fighting them yourself?
It's commendable that you took your niece in, but it will never make up for all the garbage you post on a daily basis here at MMFA. BTW, since you're five years younger than my son, I'm old enough to be your father. And if my son ever behaved like you do here, I would be totally ashamed of him. I hope your family is equally ashamed of you.
Strange thing about this whole line of reasoning by our friend Columbus here is that it doesn't hold water. Why? Let me explain. I have a friend of mine who is also in the National Guard. He has 2 small children at home, 8 and 10 years old. He spent the first part of his adulthood in special ops, took part in the invasion of Panama, Gulf War I, and a bunch of other things that he can't tell us about. His wife passed away last year due to a severe bout of cancer. His National Guard unit is currently training up to ship out to Iraq at the end of this summer. Guess what he did?
Even though he was assigned to NOT go to Iraq, he put in his papers to ship out with his unit to go over there. He didn't want his buddies, and or his friends and compatriots to go over there and shoulder the burden without him, even though he has 2 children to take care of. He made the decision to go, and do his duty, and looks upon it to be a chance for him to protect his children in a way that most of the rest of us can only really dream about.
So, for Columbus, while I applaud and appreciate what you're doing with your niece, for your sister, I also just see it is an excuse. There are ways of doing it, my friend is doing it even though he hates this war, hates this President, and hates that we're in Iraq, he believes in his friends, and wants to support them in their assigned duties and mission. I've never been more proud to be his friend when he was telling me this.
I think we should get our armoried fleet and march straight to the capital of Saudi Arabia and Iran, must like the Israelis did when marching to Cairo.
That's the answer - MORE WAR! You're stupid.
War with Iran & the major corrupt oil producing countries is inevitable
Only by electing Grampy McMaverick. Won't happen. A Democratic landslide is the only thing that's inevitable. Unlike yourself, the vast majority of this country doesn't like the endless killing of innocent people or wasting billions our hard-earned money that is now going into the hands of war profiteers.
You are really a shortsighted idiot.
What exactly makes you think that the other large fully industrialized nations of the world are going to sit back and let us screw with the place that produces a much larger percentage of the oil that they use than it does for us?
Do you really think China and the larger remnants of Russia, for example, would have no problem with the US declaring pre-emptive wars all of the over place and destabilizing oil supplies and messing up the gloabl oil prices?
Maybe we could get away with hijacking Venezuala militarily, only because we have a much stronger capacity for long range large scale operations that much closer to our own country, but we could not possibly sustain a continued state of war against multiple very well armed and supplied forces on the other half of the planet.
What you put forward is a proposition of a full global conflict that will change the face of this world in a major way no matter what the outcome. Think what a full draft, materials rationing and nationalization of industry as was necessary during WWII would do to an economy completely based on consumerism. Think how far backwards the lesser industrialized and Third World nations will be thrown by this level of disruption of the global economy. By the end a war for control of these resources would end up reducing the ability to obtain them and non-military demand for them.
Think of what happened to the last major nation with a strong military capacity that began an imperialistic war of aggression in search for resources and global control.
Do you really think China and the larger remnants of Russia, for example, would have no problem with the US declaring pre-emptive wars all of the over place and destabilizing oil supplies and messing up the gloabl oil prices?
Yes. China is not going to want to put up with the corrupt pricing policies. Russia could care less about it because they can support themselves on their own oil - but need additional refineries. We are not destabilizing supplies - OPEC is purposely doing that already.
I stick by my opening remark.
Let's try it this way: If China moves to take control of an oil producing nation that supplies some US oil needs, what do you think our response would be? If there are wars being waged in and around the countries that produce the oil, how can that fail to have a massive impact on not only the ability to produce oil in that region both during and long after the war as well as the ability to transport it out of the country while the war is being waged?
OPEC just messes with supply and prices in order to create the highest profits for themselves, aided by this by market speculators from this country and others who fuel the conditions for prices to rise. They do exactly what any good capitalist is supposed to do, "maximize profits," just like the American corporations turning the oil into gasoline and selling it on our streets do. A war will disrupt actual supply and prices, as well as demand far more than economic forces and institutional greed do.
Republican logic: War raises oil prices. To lower price, wage more war.
But then again, it's the post 9/11 world where war=peace, tax cuts=more revenue, and abstinence only=fewer pregnancies.
LIMBAUGH: "...this is supposedly why we elected Democrats to the House of Representatives two years ago. They were going to fix this."
They love to spin the election results of 2006, now more than ever.
There were 3 main reasons why not a single incumbent Congressional Democrat lost their Congressional seat in 2006 (that was an Historic first for that to happen), and why Republicans failed to capture even one open Congressional seat nation-wide in 2006 (another Historic first!):
1. BUSH
2. IRAQ
3. Congressional Ethics, specifically the many scandals (delay, ney, "duke" cunningham, abrahmoff, foley, hastert, etc.) of the Congressional Republican majority.
Now more than ever, they're trying to spin those election results, and distract you from those truths. because it's still all about BUSH, and it's still all about IRAQ... but whatever happened to the many Congressional scandals, and the question of Congressional Ethics?
It seems to have gone away, doesn't it... ever since Democrats took both the Senate and the House in 2006, Congressional Ethics and scandal seem to have been "fixed"...
LIMBAUGH: "...this is supposedly why we elected Democrats to the House of Representatives two years ago. They were going to fix this."
As far as Congressional Ethics was concerned, we did fix it.
IRAQ and BUSH will both be "fixed" too, in about 6 months time... in the election (Historic!) of 2008.
Maybe Rush has confused the price of gas with the price of Oxycontin...one fuels his car, the other his mouth.
-- Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price-gouging; rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies; and increasing production of alternative fuels -- Pelosi Apr06
When democrats took control of congress in the 206 midterms they inherited gasoline at the adjusted price of $2.36 a gallon...in Apr08 the price was $3.46.
Atta way Nancy...I think I've seen enough of your common sense...but I'm heartened by the do-nothing actions of your regime.
-- Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship. --
Having trouble proving your citizenship? Must be democrats. But regardless of who they are...anyone who isn't smart enough to be able to provide proof of his citizenship...doesn't need to vote...and don't even start with the lame crap that it is a financial hardship.
No kidding. This is ridiculous.
No, what is ridiculous is the fact that both of you think that people not being able to exercise their rights to vote isn't a problem. Shame on both of you for crapping on others' rights, just because you may not like the candidate for whom they'll more than likely vote.
I disagree with you both on many a topic, but I will never do anything to keep you from exercising your rights. You right-wingers really need to get over yourselves.
You're completely wrong about the nuns.
They were not disallowed the ability to vote. They were offered the option of casting a provisional ballot...which would be counted when they provided proof...and they declined.
Do you know why they declined, Wesley?
"They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”
Since you think its a good law, please provide examples of voter fraud, especially in Indiana, that the law was meant to erase.
Looks like the poor little nuns should have planned a little better.
I don't have to...want to...or need to prove voter fraud in Indiana to support the id law...I just happen to think it's a damn fine idea.
Of course not...except for the believers in a nanny state.
Get with the program berg...you have to learn to do a few things for yourself. The government does not pick you up and deliver you to the polling places.
If you're able to get yourself to the voting booth...you're certainly capable of making one more trip to the BMV for your ID...god o mighty boy.
Wesley,
I thought we were keeping the personal things out. Those who are not mobile, i.e. those in a nursing home will have a hard time with this law. Since the Constitution places no restrictions on the rights of citizens to vote, it will be interesting to see how Indiana responds to this. Its not wanting a nanny state to ensure that each state government upholds the Constitutionally-protected right to vote.
Wow, being called stupid is such a compelling argument. Why, you totally proved me wrong with that stunning display of intellectual horsepower. I bow to your superior intellect. </sarcasm>
-- Yeah, like the Indiana nuns...Until the government starts to provide free government-issued identification, this is a poll tax. -- friedbergboy
Keerist, can you leave the talking points for just one minute. There is no poll tax in Indiana...they will provide your id free.
From the Indiana Sec. of State website:
-- Public Law 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card free. --
I'll count on you to pick up the nuns and drive them to their local BMV for their free ID and stop this crazy disenfranchisement.
Since the Constitution freely gives all citizens the right to vote, shouldn't the state of Indiana be mandated to make sure that each of its citizens has the form of identification needed? Offering cards is a great first step, but unless the state is proactively giving these cards to people, it is a burden, albeit a slight one, to voting. I hope that the state is providing an outreach to those who have expired licenses and identification and is proactive even at the polling places. Otherwise, I could not disagree more with the Court's decision.
You don't have to vote...if you're afraid of showing who you are.
And while you're at it...you can boycott all those other activities that require proof of identity.
Depending on your personal appearance
1) To buy Tobacco Products
2) To buy Alcholic Beverages
In General
3) To fly
4) To re enter the US from Mexico or Canada
5) To rent a car
6) If you are stopped by the Police
And in some places
7) To rent a Motel room
8 To cash a check over certain amounts
8) To verify your credit card in certain instances
I would like to see your hand, Snoopy, I've had a couple of six fingered cats in the past, but never an eight fingered puppy. Have a great evening!
"Depending on your personal appearance"
Now you're catching on. I should only have to prove I can legally vote once. Got that? If our government is too stupid to not want to invest in the proper infrastructure to ensure we are that right, than all I can say is we have a bunch of republicans in charge.
I think you are a little confused at the difference between priveledges and rights. You have a constitutionally protected right to vote. The other things you describe are mostly private activities and priveledges without any such protections. Let's not compare apples and oranges here.
It is true that you can vote absentee ballot in most of these "voter ID" states without an ID. It kind of makes me wonder what a homeless person can do to vote. Remember all rights are equal here.
"How do we handle that with a homeless person? I will have to say that I don't know." --oscar
The law needs to provide for that. There needs to be a way that the least common denominator is provided for or the law will facilitate disfranchisement of people otherwise entitled to their Constitutional right to vote.
i have a constitutional right to have a handgun, but to get one i have to present i.d. and go through a background check. so your argument based on rights and privileges makes no sense.
Read the wording of the Constitution. The 2nd ammendment provides for some regulation of the right to own arms. It is not a right to the same degree as voting.
Secondly, the wording also does not refer to "guns", but "arms". Do you think you have an unlimited right to own any "arms" you want? Can you own missiles? Nuclear arms? Biological arms?
You are simply comparing apples to oranges.
Then, how come every year when I renew my vehicle license in our state, I have to verify my Driver's License number?
Because in most (if not all) states, you cannot get or renew a ehicle registration without having a valid driver's license. They need your driver's license number to make sure you're not on the revoked list.
Besides (as someone else mentioned above), driving is not a right - it's a priviledge. Voting, OTOH, is a right of citizenship.
The problem is the difference between proving identity through showing some form of state or federally issued photo ID, which I really don't have a problem with voters having to do, and being forced to go beyond that level of proof and somehow producing proof of citizenship in addition to that ID. And worse yet, being asked to on a completely subjective basis by volunteer poll workers who have no qualifications to make that sort of a judgement call.
Does Wesley carry around "Proof of Citizenship" at all times? Well, unless Wesley has an accent or certain ethnic physical traits, it won't matter because the poll workers aren't going to be hassling him for it. Wesley looks and sounds "American" and so his driver's license or state ID are going to be fine.
This law isn't being made to solve a problem, it's being made to discourage entire blocks of people to not vote because they are going to be guaranteed a government sanctioned intimidation when they try to.
You're 100% correct. There isn't a problem to fix. These laws are designed solely to keep people who could otherwise vote from doing so. I've been following the primaries quite closely - and so far, I've heard nothing about voter fraud in Indiana.
So why not let the nuns vote? I'm going out on a limb here, but it's a pretty good chance that a 95 year old nun is who she says she is.
Action my boy, action. That's what it takes. Just have your democrats reach across that aisle...extend that hand of bipartisanship...after all that's what Obama has pledged.
It might work better than whining...but that's just a thought.
Every candidate from the party not in power at the time runs on a platform of "change," Wesley. As for making things personal, your party has been the ones obstructing Congressional Business who whined about filibusters in the last term when they were rarely used in comparison. Doesn't that indicate that Dems were more open to compromise? I think it does.
Do you think that Bush and the Republican Congress's policies only affected the four years they were in power or did some policies have longer lasting effect?
Do you not agree that the Republicans have filibustered more in one year than any minority party in history?
Do you think that policies and results only last four years?
Wes,
What do you suggest we do to lower energy prices? I suggest we look at long-range solutions such as alternative fuels and require our automakers to raise their fuel-efficiency standards. What do you think? See, I am reaching out to you ;).
You're right about your long range plan...it will be a long time before alternative fuels have enough impact to lower the price of oil.
I support the development of alternative fuels...hell I support the development of any energy source.
I mostly support as the best way to lower or stabilize oil prices is to explore and drill within our own boundaries.
See how easy it is when you play nice. I'll give you more support for alternative energy sources if you'll give me more support for producing more of our own oil.
Deal?
Columbus is confused again. The oil business in ND (North Dakota) is growing rapidly. If Democrats are trying to block drilling there, they haven't been doing a good job of it. Byron Dorgan is a Democrat and he has been trying to attract Oil companies to the state.
As of a few years ago, oil companies didn't even want to drill in ANWR. I don't know if the situation has changed since then or not. Besides, it isn't like ANWR is nearly enough supply to change the price of gas either.
The problem with AWR is that it is one of the last pristine tundra coastal areas in our country and in the world. Millions of migratory birds utilize the refuge. Polar bears are increasingly dependent on the coastal plain because global warming has greatly reduced their ability to make shelters on sea ice. Caribou use the refuge because they have been pushed there from other drilling operations on the north shore.
The tundra is an extremely fragile ecosystem that takes centuries to recover from damage. There are tire tracks in the tundra from exploratory vehicles that traveled through it 50 years ago.
Not to mention that we have treaties with Canada to preserve ANWR along with a sister refuge on their side of the border.
I could go on and on, and I didn't even get into the issue of how little oil is there.
"The problem with AWR is that it is one of the last pristine tundra coastal areas in our country and in the world. Millions of migratory birds utilize the refuge. Polar bears are increasingly dependent on the coastal plain because global warming has greatly reduced their ability to make shelters on sea ice. Caribou use the refuge because they have been pushed there from other drilling operations on the north shore"
In other words animals in ANWR are more important than human beings who need energy prices to go down. Thanks for displaying that bit of liberal logic.
If by liberal logic, you mean decent, respectful, and moral, you are correct. I'm not sure if you knew this, but humans aren't the only things on ths planet, justas US interestes aren't the only interests in human relations. Selfishness and superiority are not good atributes. We have the ability to make moral decisions regarding how we treat the world around us.
Also, if by liberal logic you mean sensical and forward thinking, you are also correct. The evidence is screaming at us that the destruction we cause to ecosystems have dramatic effects on our lives and livelihood. Some choose to ignore that evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Once we destroy something, it will never return and when the consequences are so stark that we can no longer ignore them, we will have no way to repair the damage. It's better to think of those things in advance before we destroy things for miniscule economic gains that can easily be avoided through alternative strategies. That's liberal logic in action.
You, of course, entirely skipped the whole part about the oil that is under ANWR not really being any good. It can't be readily refined, and even if it could, it would still be years (many) on down the road before it would have an impact on the US, and because of the type of oil that is there, it won't help us any. I mean, you guys must think that "oil is oil", but it's not.
You also fail to see the impact of killing a few polar bears. It's not the killing of the bears that is the problem, it is the reason behind the killing of the bears. It's called destroying an eco system, as in, this is how our planet lives and breathes. Because you can't see it from where you're sitting, and because most of us have never been there, doesn't mean that it's not important for the long term sustainability of our entire planet. Another good example, Amazon rain forests.
Talk about baseless claims! Here, read this report. You may get 3% to 5% out of ANWR, starting in 2013 (assuming permission were granted today). At present levels of consumption, ANWR would be drained of economically recoverable oil within 12 years. And price impact would most likely be negligible. If OPEC operates as expected, they will reduce production by the same amount that the US increases production.
You can read all about it here.
Nobody knows precisely how much oil is in Alaska. All figures are speculative.
United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 gigabarrels as of 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration, a 46% decline from the 39 gigabarrels it had in 1970 when the huge Alaska North Slope ('ANS') reserves were booked. With production of around 5 million barrels per day (790,000 m³/d) as of 2006, this represents about an 11 year supply of oil at current rates. With consumption at 21 million barrels per day (3,300,000 m³/d) (7.7 gigabarrels per year) (2007), US reserves alone could satisfy US demand for only three years.[citation needed]
No oil fields of similar size to the ANS reserves have been found in the US since 1970. With over 2.3 million wells having been drilled in the US since 1949,[43] there are very few unexplored areas left where another supergiant oil field is likely to be found.[citation needed] US oil reserve numbers are very accurate compared to those of most other countries.
Hmmm, only 3 years worth of oil... You must be confused with oil shale.
The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years. However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves.
RH,
Talk about your ridiculous talking points. Is our national security affected by oil?
Considering humans are the most adaptable species on the planet - existing nearly everywhere, do you think it is unwise that we cut the animals who aren't quite as adaptable some slack?
I don't think conservatives really understand ecology at all.
Yes, killing a couple of polar bears in Alaska sure is going to come back to haunt us. The remaining polar bears up in Alaska may decide to invade the other 49 states and take over the country. They may very well throw us out of power for being so cruel. Our national security interests may very well be in jeopardy if we tick off the polar bears.
Hey, Rino Hunter!!!
It looks like you're on the wrong side of this argument. Look what CNN just posted at the top of their web site as "Breaking News":
Breaking News: U.S. declares polar bears “threatened”
Posted: 02:44 PM ET
U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the polar bear will receive protection as a “threatened” species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation groups had petitioned the U.S. to give full “endangered” protection to the mammals — citing a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and U.S. government studies predicting a rapid decline for the bear population due to loss of habitat. The government was under federal court order to rule on the bears’ status by tomorrow.
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/breaking-news-us-declares-polar-bears-threatened/
How do you know if it will affect us or not? Is that your only measuring stick for what is right and wrong? Your arrogance is simply astounding.
I don't think you have really thought about what you say. You can't be that stupid. I refuse to believe it.
Of course its a deal, and Wesley, you and I have had productive dialogue on here before. However, if we are drilling in places like ANWR which, according to estimates, would only lower the price of oil by about a penny per gallon, I will object. What we need to do too is investigate where the record profits of the oil industry are going to. They have repeatedly told us that the money is going to research and development. I think they should be held accountable for that, don't you?
As far as the obstructionism, the numbers bear out my point. As to the voter ID law, even if they are free, I think the government has a responsibility to provide the IDs to those who are not able to travel to get them. After all, the Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to vote, not every citizen who has the ability to procure an ID, even if free, from the state. Right?
I have never made anything personal, Wesley, and I respect you for doing the same.
Why do you think it is your charge to investigate what a legal corporation does with their profits? Do we investigate all companies or just the ones you don't like.
I'm not defending the practices of the oil companies...right or wrong. But I'll tell you this for nothing...they provide the fuel for the economic engine of the world as well as providing a better way of life...than life without oil.
Voter ID's...sure. If you have the ability to get to the poll you have the ability to procure your own free ID. In Indiana they're available at any BMV.
Now back to that deal. I'll give you a billion more dollars for research on alternative fuels...you give me drilling in ANWR...and we'll see what happens...looks like win win to me.
Wesley,
Can you show me an article which would show that ANWR would lead to a bigger price drop than this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
Well that's a nice article but hardly definitive.
First of all, anyone who has been around the financial markets or the energy industry knows that the EIA has never been able to accurately predict prices.
Second, the study you cite is woefully out of date...it's over 4 years old...using $27 oil as the baseline.
Third, if you want to assume that your study's production numbers are accurate...then drilling in ANWR would increase domestic production by about 20%.
Fourth, the moan from greenies that we will harm the environment is patently false. Drilling on the north slope and the alaska pipeline has not harmed the environment. Today's environmental technology is even better.
But mostly the argument always comes down to the social and economic well being of Americans vs. polar bears and caribou.
Now remember, we're reaching across the aisle under the mantra of change and bipartisanship. I get to drill in ANWR with the solemn pledge of not harming the environment...and you get a billion dollars more to develop alternative energy that reduces our demand for oil.
We can stop the paralysis...I'll get busy tomorrow increasing our domestic production by 20%...and you get busy with the development of those alternative energy sources.
Wesley,
Define "harming the environment." What do you think of Snoopy's articles about the quality of the oil?
You're right. They don't count unless you're willing to say that animals are more important than human beings. Hitler had this view, so I don't really think that you want to have this same view.
What is it someone once said?
You can tell a lot about society as to how it treats its animals.
Nice Godwin by the way, totally out of the blue. Talk about stupid ad homs about, well, nothing.
RH,
Just how are animals treated better in our society than humans? When is human hunting season? When a bear kills a human, we kill the bear so it won't kill again. What dishes do you eat that are made of humans? Are the interiors of your homes made with human hide?
If you are going to be absurd, take it all the way, man ;).
"I'm not the one being absurd. The Democrats in Congress are. They oppose drilling in ANWR because they're afraid we'll harm a few polar bears. They value animals more than human beings. You and your liberal friends in Congress are being absurd, not me."
That is the stupidest excuse for an argument I have ever heard. They value animals more than they do MONEY, not humans. Drilling in ANWR is about money, not human lives. To equate the two is absurd to an nth degree.
RH,
Explain how polar bears are being treated better than people. Are you saying that if there was oil under some of our houses that people would be killed for it?
RH -
Those of us who are opposed to drilling in ANWR are concerned about a lot more than just a few polar bears. For example, here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. It details some of the effects the area is experiencing today, nearly 20 years after the spill occurred. Boldface emphasis is mine:
Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26,000 U.S. gallons (22,000 imp gal/98,000 L) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.
<snip>
Wildlife was severely affected by the oil spill. Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively. Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000 to as many as 500,000 seabirds, at least 1,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs. Due to a thorough cleanup, little visual evidence of the event remained in areas frequented by humans just 1 year later. However, the effects of the spill continue to be felt today. Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations. Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_valdez_oil_spill
Now - would you want to see ANOTHER ecological disaster like this, just to save a penny or two on gas - if that?
That was such a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. Really, you actually belive that environmental protection is equivelant to hitler's nazis? Really? Can you promise that the republicans will run on that line this fall because I would love to see how the American people respond to that one.
Of course any normal adult with more that two brain cells to rub together knows that the argument is not about "a few animals" and it is also not about humans. It is about endangered and fragile ecosystems vs. human wealth and convenience. If you are unaware of how dependent we as humans are on ecosystems, than I suggest you get some education before coming here and bringing such weak sauce and making an ass of yourself. Just the fact that you felt the need to resort to Hitler shows how little you have in your arsenal.
And since I can't see previous comments while I type, I can't remember if it was RINO or Wes who stated that there is no environmental damage on the north shore. That is patently untrue. There are mountains of evidence proving that to be false. It actually makes more of a case to preserve ANWR because more animals must utilize that area because they avoid the drilling operations and pipelines nearby. There are dozens of journal articles just speaking to the need for ANWR as breeding ground for caribou because of human intrusion elsewhere. It's not just the physical damage from spills or putting holes in the ground, it is much more the human activity, roads, airstrips, bases, etc. that disrupt animals and damage the ecosystems.
Rino,
So you reject views just because hitler had them? I suppose you refuse to ride the US Highway system that Eisenhower took the idea from the Autobahn - a Nazi design loved by hitler?
We have the right to inquire as to corporate profits because it is out money that's being taken from us. If the oil companies are going to gouge us, we have the right to know what they're gouging us for.
You are forgetting that an increase in oil goes further than just higher prices at the pumps. You may have noticed that groceries have increased, some as high as 50% or more. Everything that has anything to do with oil or gasoline is increasing - and in my opinion, oil companies who are making a killing off of us should explain what the hell is going on. It's my hard earned money. I have to eat. I have to put gas in my car (even though I use public transportation to go to work). They should have to explain why they are making so much off my back.
We have the right to inquire as to corporate profits because it is out money that's being taken from us. If the oil companies are going to gouge us, we have the right to know what they're gouging us for.
You are forgetting that an increase in oil goes further than just higher prices at the pumps. You may have noticed that groceries have increased, some as high as 50% or more. Everything that has anything to do with oil or gasoline is increasing - and in my opinion, oil companies who are making a killing off of us should explain what the hell is going on. It's my hard earned money. I have to eat. I have to put gas in my car (even though I use public transportation to go to work). They should have to explain why they are making so much off my back.
I didn't expect you to get it.
You've never gotten it, Wesley. That's why you're going through life as a right-wing, ignorant dunce.
You got it, dunce. eliberate actions by humans that result in animal extinction can have devastating effects on teh food chain that cause far more damage than any benefit that might be derived from getting a little bit of oil.
But you've never been one to see the "big picture" - have you?
extend that hand of bipartisanship
Never gonna happen cause i'm sure the Repubs wouldn't dare touch the hands of those war-hating, healt-care loving, environmentally crazy Democratic traitors.
Action my boy, action. That's what it takes. Just have your democrats reach across that aisle...extend that hand of bipartisanship...after all that's what Obama has pledged.
It might work better than whining...but that's just a thought.
The only problem there, Wesley, is that Republicans do not know how to compromise - and compromise is the key to seeking common ground and achieving bipartisanship. Republicans want everything done their way - or they fillibuster so that nothing gets done, like the spoiled little children they are.
The 7 years of Bush:
The average price of a gallon of gas has skyrocketed, from $1.39 a gallon in January 2000 to $3.07 a gallon in January 2007.
Even as oil companies raked in record profits, the White House fought to make sure they kept $7.6 billion in tax subsidies and the legal loophole that lets them dodge paying $10.7 billion in royalties from oil found in public U.S. lands in the Gulf of Mexico.
There are 4.9 million more Americans living in poverty today than there were in 2000.
According to the USDA, the number of hungry families in the United States rose 26 percent between 2001 and 2006. Worse, the number of families with the least access to enough food rose 32 percent. That’s 1.3 million American families, not including the homeless.
In 2006 the U.S. Department of Agriculture attempted to sugarcoat the hunger issue by banning the word “hunger” from official documents, replacing it with the more opaque “very low food security.”
In 2008, the average U.S. household will have to spend $986 to heat their homes in winter, up 11 percent from the year before. Millions of the elderly and poor rely on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to heat their homes, yet in 2007, President Bush asked Congress to slash funding for LIHEAP by $379 million.
Under the Bush administration, corporate giants like Microsoft and Wal-Mart managed to finagle $12 billion in small business grants from the federal government. Federal law says, based on population, small businesses must receive 23 percent of federal contracts. The government claims at least a quarter of federal contracts are going to help small business owners (small business = one employing fewer than 100 people), but in reality, it’s more like 5 percent.
A total of 603,139 Americans filed for bankruptcy in the first three quarters of 2007, a 40.15 percent increase over the same period in 2006.
In January 2007, President Bush announced a plan to send a 20,000-troop “surge” to Iraq to quell the violence and provide military cover while the Iraqi government took over the ruling of its own nation. The U.S. military was able to staunch much of the violence in the country—though at the price of 896 American troops killed in 2007—but the Iraqi government remains in chaos. The Iraq Inspector General calls government corruption “the second insurgency,” Parliament rarely is able to get a quorum together to conduct business, and even the Iraqi Minister of Defense says the government will be unable to take over its own security until at least 2012.
Despite spending $488 billion (so far) on the Iraq war, many of the U.S.-led reconstruction projects in Iraq, fraught with corruption, security problems, and inept contractors, “have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed.” Hospitals, prisons, and police training centers were all abandoned, while the guard-house for the U.S. Embassy became such a toxic fire hazard, they had to evacuate everyone who tried to move in.
Today, Al Qaeda along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border is back to pre-9/11 strength. The Taliban increased the number of roadside and suicide bomb attacks in 2007 to the highest level since the war in Afghanistan began. The two groups are flush with money from the Afghanistan opium trade, which “grew by 17 percent in 2007, reaching record levels for the second straight year.”
In 2006, America’s health care costs spiraled to an all-time high of over $2 trillion (or $7,026 per person). In a report by the World Health Organization, America ranks 37th in health care quality, despite spending more per person than any other country in the world.
A half century ago, with the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ordered the nation’s schools to desegregate. In 2007, with two of President Bush’s Court appointees in the 5-4 majority, the Roberts Court rolled back desegregation, ruling local officials “cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together.”
And the list goes one and on.
Nancy Pelosi? LOL!
PigBoy never met a fact he couldn't ignore.
And he keeps ignoring my calls for him to come clean about his arrest in the company of a male prostitute back in the Early '70s in Pittsburgh, when he was working under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".
We're waiting, Rush. It's time for the "Great American Truth Detector" to tell his listeners the truth about himself.
Of course, next week, PigBoy will insist that Oil Prices are controlled by the invisible hand of Market Forces, and that President Numbnuts never could have done anything about it anyway.
And then on January 21, 2009, PigBoy will say, "Well, President Obama - what are you going to do about these gas prices?"
Although gas prices have been increasing for a while, but when did the prices start "going through the roof?"
OK, MMFA, let's see a graph that actually deals with what Rush said!
Everyone does realize that when Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.44 (almost $1.45)!
And I filled the tank of my Honda Element today at lunchtime. At the $3.65-a-gallon price here in my part of Texas, it cost me $45.00. I'm glad I commute less than ten miles each way.
-- when Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.44 -- friedbergboy
Yep...in the 7 years the price increased from $1.44 ot $2.36 Then the democrats took control of congress. Since democrats have been in control of congress...the price has gone from $2.36 to $3.46...in eighteen short months.
Wesley,
In your mind, which Democratic policies have led to the increase?
Short answer? none.
Heck, Wes can't even tell us what was the result of that "investigation" Bush promised in 2006 (see my previous link)!
-- which Democratic policies -- berg
-- Short answer? none -- snoopy
You boys catch on fast.
Wesley,
My question still stands. What policies/inaction, do you blame on the Dems for the oil prices?
ANWR is a long-term project, what can be done in the short run, in your opinion.
Lets look at real numbers. I got them from a DOE website here
In annual average over the whole US, gas prices were $1.13 in 1999. They jumped to $1.48 in 2000, not sure why. Then they actually went down by a few cents a year to $1.34 in 2002. Then we invaded Iraq. In 2003 they jumped to $1.56, 2004- $1.85, 2005- $2.27, 2006- $2.57, and 2007- $2.79. So, actually the price in 2007 increased at a lesser amount than it had over the previous several years. I don't account that to much of anything that the Dems in Congress did, but they certainly didn't make the situation worse by any stretch of the imagination. But we all already knew that.
Lets finish off those real numbers from the DOE.
The price of gasoline in 2008 is $3.20 per gallon.
I used the annual averages because the prices fluctuate so dramatically throughout the year. Since we are only 5 months into 2008, there is no 2008 annual average yet. But, lets take monthly averages here. For each of the first four months of the year, the price increase was more drastic betwee 2001-2006 than it was from 2006-2008.
I am not arguing that there has not been an increase lately, but the whole point of this entire thread is that it is asinine to argue that there has not been drastic price increases throughout this decade, not just since Dems took office. But anyone with half a brain knew that already.
As I see it, I don't think the president can do much about the prices. The war at this stage has nothing to do with prices. There is a risk premium as many of the largest producers are run by maniacs and dictators, and that includes the saudis.
our only defense is to drill more, and produce more. during katrina, a thousand wells in the gulf were damaged, but not a single one leaked. yet, we can't drill offshore in 85% of the likely places, because of safety concerns. we can't drill in anwr because of environmental concerns. oh, yes i know the argument that anwar won't provide all our needs. well, so what? if that was the criteria we would never drill a single well.
now schumer and friends want to cut off sales of military equipment to the saudis if they don't pony up. great idea. so we still import oil, but now we lose military sales and the saudis sidle up to the russkies who will gladly take our business. how dumb can that guy be.
Firstly, "our only defense" is not to drill more. There are TWO components to the supply/demand ratio. If you don't like paying so much for your gas, then don't buy so much of it. Duh?
Secondly, We don't currently buy oil from the Saudi's, Mr. Einstein.
Factcheck.org debunks an email which contains this same stale argument and other misinformation:
Q: Did electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 really lead to increased unemployment, higher gas prices and more home foreclosures?
A: No, and most of the figures in a widely-circulated e-mail are made up. In fact, the entire premise of the e-mail is a logical fallacy.
Like most of the chain e-mails making the rounds, this one is inaccurate. Some claims are outright false while others are grossly out of context. Overall, the e-mail commits the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (or after the fact, therefore because of the fact).
"The e-mail implies that gas prices were at $2.19 per gallon just prior to the 2006 election. Gas prices did in fact dip as low as $2.19 per gallon, but they did so in January 2007, after the congressional elections. Gas prices also dipped below $2.19 per gallon in November 2005, a full year before the election. The e-mail also fails to mention that prices climbed to more than $3.00 per gallon in August 2006, when Republicans controlled both branches of Congress and the White House."
OxyMoron Limbaugh is upset that it'll cost him more to fly in for weekends with the kiddies in the Dominican Republic.
He obviously can't blame it on his tin idol in the White House -- so what's a ramblin' pedophile to do?
Once again, Lush Rambo allows his pompous fat head to get in the way of reason. Like all neocon ops, he takes his cues from the late Joseph Goebels, who was convinced that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it, especially if it is total nonsense. Gas prices remained amazingly constant during the Clinton years. But George W. Bush and the Bush Dynasty (which some wags dub "Bush, Incorporated") had ties to the House of Saud that went way back and could profit from an oil crisis.
The oil business is driven by market factors, including the galloping consumption in developing nations like China and India. Hillary Clinton got caught once profiting from investment in futures, perhaps with a bit of insider information. Considering the Bush bunch's decades-long involvement in oil, it doesn't take a gypsy with a crystal ball to figure out that Dubya is, somehow, raking in the shekels on each increase in crude prices.
There is no oil shortage. What is happening is that the price is being driven up by futures traders. That, and the neocon-inspired invasion of Iraq. Heavily invested in oil and oil-related industries, Bush and Cheney had invasion in mind long before 9/11; in fact, as long ago as the 1999 presidential debates, when Dubya was telling the media (and thus the American people) that his foreign policy would eschew "nation building."
There is an apparent oil shortage: a faux gas crisis. By invading Iraq, Bush managed to destabilize the Mideast. He set Sunni against Shia. He made certain that continued turmoil in Iraq set the trading in oil futures spiraling upward. At the same time, we have reverted to anti-democratic colonialist policies similar to the British Crown in the 19th and early 20th centuries, whose downfall taught us nothing. How else to explain the $1 billion dollar embasy in Baghdad and the plans for a kind of Disneyland theme park there? Baghdad should be renamed Crawford-on-the-Tigris.
Lush Rambo would love to have us believe that Carter and Clinton played major roles in revving up the pump price to a national average of about $3.70 (6/14/08) and crude at about $126 a barrel. But it was Bush Family values that got us into the gas price frenzy. And now, we're asked to vote for McBush. Get ready for $10 gas, folks. And a century-long occupation of a sovereign nation that would like us to leave.
Rep. John Kline (R, natch') said much the same in a Mpls startribune.com op-ed last week. Unfortunately, his memory (and Rush's) is so short, they forget the Barton's landmark Energy bill passed in late 2005, just a year before the election. That bill was supposed to take are of energy policy for forseeable future.
The GOP doesn't see too far, it seems.
The GOP doesn't see too far, it seems.
It's dificult to see very far when your head is shoved as far up your rectum as your typical Republican's head is. :-)
The GOP doesn't see too far, it seems.
It's dificult to see very far when your head is shoved as far up your rectum as your typical Republican's head is. :-)
The GOP doesn't see too far, it seems.
It's dificult to see very far when your head is shoved as far up your rectum as your typical Republican's head is. :-)
Anybody notice Rushbo's voice. Maybe he has a cold or maybe the oxycotin is plugging up his ears.
One thing the President could do about oil is to temporarily stop filling our strategic reserve(97% full) with highly refinable oil.
Another would to stop wasting fuel in Iraq.
I don't know what kind of hot tip line he has into the Whitehouse, but I certainly hope his bloviating about the benefits of the Great Depression doesn't mean he knows something we don't know about the economy.