How do the liberals or Democrats on this board view oil prices?

[fleinn]

Yeah. I wish we'd be as hands on when it comes to pollution and air quality in the cities, and so on - where the predictions really are relatively easy.

I mean - you'd sort of expect that people would be less engaged in things that seem too big. And that it would be easier to make people pick up on why regulation of various sorts make sense if it has a real impact that you can see. And that this turns into a wish to look at a broader solution. But no. Apparently it's easier to care about curious non- specific problems that have no impact on your own way of life, but sounds high- minded and useful..

[Elf1]

Back to the question...

Just look at the solutions that are being offered in politics to see how democrats/liberals react.

Obama. What solution? "Don't drive. Don't do anything that will help people for at least 10 years."

Some democrats are even proposing to RAISE the federal gas tax!

Why? Why would they do such a thing? I mean, other than control?

Take a group of people who are hurting...tax them. Then when they are all suffering so bad, you can turn around and use those taxes for social programs.

Invent new taxes...such as a "carbon tax". Every person only allotted a specified amount of carbon units. You go over, you pay a tax.

More government control.

And why? It was the government that got people into the mess in the first place.

Cat in the hat politics. Thank a democrat.

[MenInTights]

Originally Posted by Elf1

Back to the question...

Just look at the solutions that are being offered in politics to see how democrats/liberals react.

Obama. What solution? "Don't drive. Don't do anything that will help people for at least 10 years."

Some democrats are even proposing to RAISE the federal gas tax!

Why? Why would they do such a thing? I mean, other than control?

Take a group of people who are hurting...tax them. Then when they are all suffering so bad, you can turn around and use those taxes for social programs.

Invent new taxes...such as a "carbon tax". Every person only allotted a specified amount of carbon units. You go over, you pay a tax.

More government control.

And why? It was the government that got people into the mess in the first place.

Cat in the hat politics. Thank a democrat.

I agree that a lot of Democrat leaders have those views. But, I still wonder about the average Democrat. The working Joe that maybe is a dem because he's in the union or social issues. I have no clue what those guys (the bulk of the party) think.

Its perplexing. On the one hand they are just like me, so I'm sure they are as upset as I am. On the other hand, many of their leaders have these wacked out ideas and they get re-elected, so maybe they do too?

I hope that they have the same views we do becuase then there can be a solution regardless of who wins. I don't know?

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by MenInTights

I agree that a lot of Democrat leaders have those views. But, I still wonder about the average Democrat. The working Joe that maybe is a dem because he's in the union or social issues. I have no clue what those guys (the bulk of the party) think.

LOL.

I am conservative (if that needed to be pointed out), and I was the union rep for a job I had. Did it for several years. Saved the jobs of many coworkers...and loved it. I am actually pro-union.

But to address your comment...the average democrat voted the democrat into office. Whether it is based on ignorance on voting for democrat because they hate everyone but democrats, or whatever reason...you vote for the guy...you accept their policies. If not, vote someone else.

I hope for $5/gallon or higher. I really do.

Because when that happens, suddenly a lot of democrats who are way to the left are going to get left behind with all those special interest groups that have hijacked society at large.

But the solution is going to be at least 4 years off. Obama and a democrat run senate (Harry Reid?) or house (Pelosi?) being run by dean as the head of the DNC...you think that combination is going to come up with a balanced solution?

[MenInTights]

Originally Posted by Elf1

LOL.

Obama and a democrat run senate (Harry Reid?) or house (Pelosi?) being run by dean as the head of the DNC...you think that combination is going to come up with a balanced solution?

Geez, think about that for a moment. Obama - Reid - Pelosi

This one thing makes me think McCain is a sure bet. America never lines up 3 leaders from the same party especially being that 2 are far left.

Reagan never had the House. Bush41 never had the Senate or House. Clinton had it for two years. Bush43 had it his first term, although the Senate was so evenly split it was pretty much a null.

Its something to think about. If the Congress is going to go heavy for the Democrat party, I see that as a positive for McCain. That's a big IF though. At this point, its possible the Congress won't move as much as people are predicting.

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by MenInTights

Geez, think about that for a moment. Obama - Reid - Pelosi

This one thing makes me think McCain is a sure bet.

Perish the thought.

Originally Posted by MenInTights

Its something to think about. If the Congress is going to go heavy for the Democrat party, I see that as a positive for McCain. That's a big IF though. At this point, its possible the Congress won't move as much as people are predicting.

Not positive for mccain. Not this term.

Definitely positive for the republican in 4 years.

McCain can't manage his campaign. He isn't attacking enough on issues.

He isn't saying, "Look at all the promises the people were given from the democrats. Let's list them and see what they have done."

End of Pork - exact opposite. Under democrats, they did a half-budget that almost had as much pork projects as an entire budget for republicans.

Bring Troops home - In 2 years, absolutely nothing done for this. In fact, they can't even seem to agree if the surge worked or not.

Those are just 2 big ones. Nobody is addressing those failures.

Even now, people are just waking up to the fact that democrats and high oil prices are going hand in hand. Blue collar america doesn't care about anything if they can't get paid. And hearing Obama say he won't do anything about oil prices....that will take a toll.

But when a gallon costs $5+...then we will see a radical shift in the house, senate, and presidency.

[MenInTights]

Originally Posted by Elf1

Even now, people are just waking up to the fact that democrats and high oil prices are going hand in hand. Blue collar america doesn't care about anything if they can't get paid. And hearing Obama say he won't do anything about oil prices....that will take a toll.

Obama in his own words:

YouTube - Obama: Higher Oil Prices Are Good? What???

I still think we don't have to live with $4 gas. We've got enough of the stuff in this country to take care of our needs.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by MenInTights

Obama in his own words:

He sounded remarkable sensible. Folks might not want to hear that oil is going to run out, and that an increase in oil price--preferably gradual--is necessary to spurn the free market to adapt to this inevitability, but those are the facts. I suppose it would play better for him to claim he had some magic beans that would lower oil prices if planted in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

McCain just happens to also be opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and said it would be like drilling in the Grand Canyon. After reading up further on ANWR, it turns out that the people in strongest opposition to drilling there are not politicians and environmentalists, but a native tribe that relies on the caribou there as one of their primary food sources. They consider the issue a "human rights issue."

Furthermore, the assumption that I had made in a previous thread that OPEC could easily ensure that drilling in ANWR had no effect on oil prices, is backed up by sound economics (or so says the EIA). So drilling there could simply result in big gains for OPEC to the detriment of American Natives, with no effect on oil prices whatsoever. Quite the gamble.

Could drilling ANWR be part of a solution? Perhaps. Is it the solution? Absolutely not. China and India will continue to grow and global oil resources will continue to dwindle. Drilling ANWR would have no immediate effect on oil prices, anyways, even if OPEC did decide to be nice. Most likely, it would just reduce the price of a barrel of crude by a buck forty-four by 2027, barring OPEC douchery. A buck forty-four savings per barrel? Whoop-dee-do.

[MenInTights]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

He sounded remarkable sensible. Folks might not want to hear that oil is going to run out, and that an increase in oil price--preferably gradual--is necessary to spurn the free market to adapt to this inevitability, but those are the facts. I suppose it would play better for him to claim he had some magic beans that would lower oil prices if planted in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

McCain just happens to also be opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and said it would be like drilling in the Grand Canyon. After reading up further on ANWR, it turns out that the people in strongest opposition to drilling there are not politicians and environmentalists, but a native tribe that relies on the caribou there as one of their primary food sources. They consider the issue a "human rights issue."

Furthermore, the assumption that I had made in a previous thread that OPEC could easily ensure that drilling in ANWR had no effect on oil prices, is backed up by sound economics (or so says the EIA). So drilling there could simply result in big gains for OPEC to the detriment of American Natives, with no effect on oil prices whatsoever. Quite the gamble.

Could drilling ANWR be part of a solution? Perhaps. Is it the solution? Absolutely not. China and India will continue to grow and global oil resources will continue to dwindle. Drilling ANWR would have no immediate effect on oil prices, anyways, even if OPEC did decide to be nice. Most likely, it would just reduce the price of a barrel of crude by a buck forty-four by 2027, barring OPEC douchery. A buck forty-four savings per barrel? Whoop-dee-do.

Everything you say is still so centered on OPEC. Maybe that's reality, but man it just seems like we've got everything we need here to tell OPEC where to go (which would be China and India).

I'm not comfortable with a President saying "Well, $4.50 gas is a reality, lets deal with it. Hopefully OPEC will keep selling to us." That sounds like Jimmy Carter putting the sweater on and asking us to turn down the thermostat. There's actually a move now to get speed limit reduced to 55mph.

This doesn't have to be the 70's all over again. It could be the 60's when we went to the moon, the 80's when we defeated the Soviet Bloc.

ANWR is definitely not The solution. We've got the OCS, we've got billions of barrel equivalent in shale, we are on the cusp of breaking through with solar and tidal, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, that weird stuff on the bottom of the ocean that burns ....One day we are going to be telling our grand kids - I remember when we had to pay $4 for gas, we didn't have it good like you kids that only pay $1.50.

Sometimes I feel like the Conservative version of John Lennon. lol.

[fleinn]

Originally Posted by MenInTights

Sometimes I feel like the Conservative version of John Lennon. lol.

..you are so getting negative rep for that one. (*no! Nasty imagination! Away!)