GOOD move

[Guest]

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is moving ahead with tough new sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's oil exports after determining there is enough crude on world markets to take the step without harming U.S. allies."

Obama's move allows the U.S. to go forward with sanctions on foreign banks that continue to purchase oil from Iran. The sanctions aim to further isolate Iran's central bank, which processes nearly all of the Islamic Republic's oil purchases, from the global economy


News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-30-14-00-22)

[Guest]

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is moving ahead with tough new sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's oil exports after determining there is enough crude on world markets to take the step without harming U.S. allies."

Obama's move allows the U.S. to go forward with sanctions on foreign banks that continue to purchase oil from Iran. The sanctions aim to further isolate Iran's central bank, which processes nearly all of the Islamic Republic's oil purchases, from the global economy


News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-30-14-00-22)

Yes, but it will be another good excuse for an increase at the pump. With eliminating oil company subsidy's on the horizon - the best excuse of all - these two 'common sense' steps will likely lead to to a good kick in our economic pants.

Now if the Chief Executive just had the power to even temporarily freeze gas prices...

(whoops, that would be the 's' word).

[Guest]

Yes, but it will be another good excuse for an increase at the pump. With eliminating oil company subsidy's on the horizon - the best excuse of all - these two 'common sense' steps will likely lead to to a good kick in our economic pants.

Now if the Chief Executive just had the power to even temporarily freeze gas prices...

(whoops, that would be the 's' word).

In this case I agree with the President, at least on a temp basis. I think the long term security of the country is worth it.

[Guest]

Any moves that raises oil prices meets the Presidents agenda of European level gas prices and more green product manufacturing. I'm hoping this move on Iran is genuine.

[Guest]

I wonder how much the U.S. oil companies, whose profits and executive bonuses continue to skyrocket, regardless of the price of oil...or the options traders who run the price up by trading oil futures and other exotic financial products...have to do with the price of oil?

Or China or India, who buy as much oil as they can get, regardless of price. Or Russia or the Saudis, who quietly turn the spigot on or off to maintain the price of oil at a high level...how much do they effect the price of gas at the pump here in the U.S.?

For that matter, how about our spendthrift Congress? The national debt has increased by three trillion dollars or so since Obama was inaugurated. But it's increased by a trillion dollars in the year or so since the Republicans took control of the House and the country's purse strings. Remember, oil is paid for worldwide in U.S. dollars. To the extent that the dollar has lost value--and it's decline in recent years has been dramatic--the value of the dollars used to buy oil is a lot less than it was last year, or the year before that or the year before that. With the dollar declining in value, the only way the countries that sell us oil can keep making the same real profits is to increase the price.

Do you really think President Obama controls all this? Really?

The president's move against Iran is a smart one. And a whole helluva lot better than a regional war that will result if Israel attacks Iran. And guess what, he doesn't 't control what Israel is going to do either.

[Guest]

I wonder how much the U.S. oil companies, whose profits and executive bonuses continue to skyrocket, regardless of the price of oil...or the options traders who run the price up by trading oil futures and other exotic financial products...have to do with the price of oil?

Or China or India, who buy as much oil as they can get, regardless of price. Or Russia or the Saudis, who quietly turn the spigot on or off to maintain the price of oil at a high level...how much do they effect the price of gas at the pump here in the U.S.?

For that matter, how about our spendthrift Congress? The national debt has increased by three trillion dollars or so since Obama was inaugurated. But it's increased by a trillion dollars in the year or so since the Republicans took control of the House and the country's purse strings. Remember, oil is paid for worldwide in U.S. dollars. To the extent that the dollar has lost value--and it's decline in recent years has been dramatic--the value of the dollars used to buy oil is a lot less than it was last year, or the year before that or the year before that. With the dollar declining in value, the only way the countries that sell us oil can keep making the same real profits is to increase the price.

Do you really think President Obama controls all this? Really?

The president's move against Iran is a smart one. And a whole helluva lot better than a regional war that will result if Israel attacks Iran. And guess what, he doesn't 't control what Israel is going to do either.

The thread was begun to endorse the Presidents actions !!!!!!!

You have a quick trigger finger to defend this guy and deflect to the Republicans !!!

[Guest]

The thread was begun to endorse the Presidents actions !!!!!!!

You have a quick trigger finger to defend this guy and deflect to the Republicans !!!I wasn't responding to your post, Bucco. But others who followed blamed the escalation of gas prices on Obama, asserting that it was all part of his grand plan to have European-style gas prices.

I think to allege that even the POTUS has that much power and influence over worldwide oil and financial markets is ridiculous and I said so. The decline in the value of the dollar, which is primarily the result of the profligate government spending authorized by our Congress during the administration of both political parties, is a major reason why the price of oil is high and getting higher, as is the control of supply applied by the big oil-producing countries.

Does anyone on this board ever put two and two together, or is it simply an exercise in thoughtless and unsubstantiated partisan politics? Does anyone ever think of the effects of a badly de-valued dollar or the oft-discussed quantitative easing done by the Fed? When the Fed buys $600 billion of our own bonds with newly-printed money as they did late last year, does anyone ever think of the effect on the value of the dollar and everything dollars are used to buy? I guaranty that if individuals here who sold something for X dollars and were later paid with dollars worth only 90% of X, they'd know what to do the next time they made a sale....raise the price! Which is exactly what the oil-producing countries are doing.

Yes, I pulled the trigger on yet another shallowly thought out partisan assertion against the POTUS. Am I defending him against such ridiculous assertions? Yes. Will I vote for him in the fall? No.

[Guest]

Look, it's as simple as this. Fox News said there were things that Obama could do to lower gas prices and, by not doing them, he was at fault. However, in 2007, when we had $4+/gal prices, they said that a President (Bush) could NOT do much of anything to combat high gas prices. That, in a nutshell, is very telling.

[Guest]

Look, it's as simple as this. Fox News said there were things that Obama could do to lower gas prices and, by not doing them, he was at fault. However, in 2007, when we had $4+/gal prices, they said that a President (Bush) could NOT do much of anything to combat high gas prices. That, in a nutshell, is very telling.

Well, Fox News. Fair and balanced.

[Guest]

Look, it's as simple as this. Fox News said there were things that Obama could do to lower gas prices and, by not doing them, he was at fault. However, in 2007, when we had $4+/gal prices, they said that a President (Bush) could NOT do much of anything to combat high gas prices. That, in a nutshell, is very telling.

What was the Non-FOX Media and the Democrats saying about Bush's role in the high gas prices of his time? The same people who are saying that Obama has nothing to do with today's high prices?

Both sides of the story would be more illuminating DJ.

On a side note; if increased supply wouldn't lower prices, as all today's MSM pundits are saying; how come to offset prices Presidents always resort to saying they'll tap the strategic oil reserves?

[Guest]

I wasn't responding to your post, Bucco. But others who followed blamed the escalation of gas prices on Obama, asserting that it was all part of his grand plan to have European-style gas prices.

I think to allege that even the POTUS has that much power and influence over worldwide oil and financial markets is ridiculous and I said so. The decline in the value of the dollar, which is primarily the result of the profligate government spending authorized by our Congress during the administration of both political parties, is a major reason why the price of oil is high and getting higher, as is the control of supply applied by the big oil-producing countries.

Does anyone on this board ever put two and two together, or is it simply an exercise in thoughtless and unsubstantiated partisan politics? Does anyone ever think of the effects of a badly de-valued dollar or the oft-discussed quantitative easing done by the Fed? When the Fed buys $600 billion of our own bonds with newly-printed money as they did late last year, does anyone ever think of the effect on the value of the dollar and everything dollars are used to buy? I guaranty that if individuals here who sold something for X dollars and were later paid with dollars worth only 90% of X, they'd know what to do the next time they made a sale....raise the price! Which is exactly what the oil-producing countries are doing.

Yes, I pulled the trigger on yet another shallowly thought out partisan assertion against the POTUS. Am I defending him against such ridiculous assertions? Yes. Will I vote for him in the fall? No.

I'm not as simple minded as that. Sanctions on Iran need to happen. Gas prices have risen because of the Iran problems. That suits POTUS. His Secretary let that cat out of the bag. He also doesn't need any more green business failures on his record. I get that politically it works out swell for the Administrations Green agenda.

[Guest]

Look, it's as simple as this. Fox News said there were things that Obama could do to lower gas prices and, by not doing them, he was at fault. However, in 2007, when we had $4+/gal prices, they said that a President (Bush) could NOT do much of anything to combat high gas prices. That, in a nutshell, is very telling.

DJPLONG..now this is where I really separate from the left leaning posters.

I know you are an intelligent fellow, so you surely know that EVERY President is blamed for high gas prices when they occur. That includes Republican presidents and I know that you are aware of that, YET....you folks always go for the politics of "getting somebody" and in this case, for NO reason you take a totally unnecessary shot at Fox news.

I recall VIVIDLY many cable channels and news sources blaming Bush for the same thing and it goes even further back, YET you still FOR NO APPARENT REASON had to make it appear as a right wing scenario.

[Guest]

Well, Fox News. Fair and balanced.


I am going to be as respectful as possible and it is difficult in cases like this, but since I started the thread I will take VERY STRONG EXCEPTION to folks like you who, IT APPEARS, have one mission in life...ridicule somebody.

I started this thread as a discussion of the move made by the President of the United States..one on which I backed what he did.......and what YOU saw was a chance to "take a cheap shot" that had nothing to do with the subject. If you do not like Fox news, DONT WATCH IT. Folks get ill watching MSNBC but I dont see them bring it here much...they just stop watching, which by the way by the ratings a whole bunch have done !

If you do not want to discuss the subject of the thread OR CANT...then move on to another thread.

[Guest]

There is an opinion piece in today's New York Times that seemed apropos to this thread. It's entitled, "Why Gas Prices Are Out Of Any President's Control".

Oh I know the immediate response from the right--the NYT is a pinko, leftist, Obama supporting rag. OK, let's accept that. But read the article and then either present an article with an opposing view or present one yourself. That might be a way we can all learn about the opposing views on the question.

A couple of key points made in the article were...
When the U.S. consumes 20% of the world's oil production but produces only 2%, it is a "price taker" (an economic term saying that price takers have little control over the price of purchased goods).

And if the POTUS is criticized for the price of gas at the pump, it seems appropriate that the effect of his administration's policies creating a strengthening economy and a skyrocketing stock market are also appropriate.
Here's the link to the Times article. I hope it's not subscription only.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?ref=business

By the way, I still agree with Bucco's original thesis that Obama's recent actions against Iran are good ones. But I still won't be voting for him in November.

[Guest]

There is an opinion piece in today's New York Times that seemed apropos to this thread. It's entitled, "Why Gas Prices Are Out Of Any President's Control".

Oh I know the immediate response from the right--the NYT is a pinko, leftist, Obama supporting rag. OK, let's accept that. But read the article and then either present an article with an opposing view or present one yourself. That might be a way we can all learn about the opposing views on the question.

A couple of key points made in the article were...
When the U.S. consumes 20% of the world's oil production but produces only 2%, it is a "price taker" (an economic term saying that price takers have little control over the price of purchased goods).

And if the POTUS is criticized for the price of gas at the pump, it seems appropriate that the effect of his administration's policies creating a strengthening economy and a skyrocketing stock market are also appropriate.
Here's the link to the Times article. I hope it's not subscription only.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?ref=business

By the way, I still agree with Bucco's original thesis that Obama's recent actions against Iran are good ones. But I still won't be voting for him in November.

The trouble with the NYT story, Kahuna, is that it is predicated (OK, here it comes) ON A LIE!!

You may find it hard to believe that the NYT lies. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe they just have really bad researchers for their stories and the stories aren't just written for "cover Obama's backside" purposes.

The Big Energy Lie, Revisited | Maley's Energy Blog (http://stevemaley.com/2011/05/10/the-big-energy-lie-revisited/)

Senators Call Obama On His Energy Lies | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/senators-call-obama-on-his-energy-lies.php)

[Guest]

The trouble with the NYT story, Kahuna, is that it is predicated (OK, here it comes) ON A LIE!!

You may find it hard to believe that the NYT lies. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe they just have really bad researchers for their stories and the stories aren't just written for "cover Obama's backside" purposes.

The Big Energy Lie, Revisited | Maley's Energy Blog (http://stevemaley.com/2011/05/10/the-big-energy-lie-revisited/)

Senators Call Obama On His Energy Lies | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/senators-call-obama-on-his-energy-lies.php)Good articles, Richie. Now we're beginning to expand our collective knowledge base so we can understand what our government is doing or not doing.

There are often two sides to many stories. In politics, the way words are parsed by the partisans, it's safe to say that there are two sides to every story.

After reading all the articles, I guess there's one common thread--that the effect of political decisions on oil exploration and production often take several years to have an effect.

I don't know what the answer is, but having different presidents with different priorities when it comes to energy seems to have created a stop-start, herky-jerky national policy with regard to the needs of the country for energy and how they will be satisfied. When was the Department of Energy (DOE) initially formed, under Jimmy Carter wasn't it?

What is the DOE supposed to do? From it's own website, it says...

"The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex."

The budget requested by President Obama for the DOE for FY 2012 is $27 billion. That's going on 1% of the entire federal budget!

Now I ask you, has the DOE done any of what they were established to do? Are we getting our money's worth from the DOE? Or from the politicians who fund and direct the department? When is the American public going to begin to ask--no DEMAND--a consistent policy which bridges all administrations, regardless of political party, to accomplish the energy independence of the country?

Would that be asking too much? Yeah, it probably would be.

[Guest]

DJPLONG..now this is where I really separate from the left leaning posters.

I know you are an intelligent fellow, so you surely know that EVERY President is blamed for high gas prices when they occur. That includes Republican presidents and I know that you are aware of that, YET....you folks always go for the politics of "getting somebody" and in this case, for NO reason you take a totally unnecessary shot at Fox news.

I recall VIVIDLY many cable channels and news sources blaming Bush for the same thing and it goes even further back, YET you still FOR NO APPARENT REASON had to make it appear as a right wing scenario.

Yes, but as memory recalls (and I'm certainly willing to be corrected), Fox was the only channel defending Bush. They said back then that there wasn't much a President could do about oil prices - and now that it's Obama, they seem to have changed their tune and are saying the exact same things that MSNBC, et al, were saying about Bush back then.

[Guest]

Yes, but as memory recalls (and I'm certainly willing to be corrected), Fox was the only channel defending Bush. They said back then that there wasn't much a President could do about oil prices - and now that it's Obama, they seem to have changed their tune and are saying the exact same things that MSNBC, et al, were saying about Bush back then.

Look I understand.....but the thread had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Fox...NOTHING.

That is my issue..you folks bring up FOX when it does not apply...the issue is oil.....I just do not understand the reference to FOX. I started a thread backing Obama and you guys still have to find a way to go after somebody !!!!

[Guest]

I'm not as simple minded as that. Sanctions on Iran need to happen. Gas prices have risen because of the Iran problems. That suits POTUS. His Secretary let that cat out of the bag. He also doesn't need any more green business failures on his record. I get that politically it works out swell for the Administrations Green agenda.

Paid 3.89 a gallon in The Villages for gasoline. Gas today in Montreal Que. is 1.42 per litre or approx 5.32 per gallon. Be thankful. Will take your price there any day.

[Guest]

Paid 3.89 a gallon in The Villages for gasoline. Gas today in Montreal Que. is 1.42 per litre or approx 5.32 per gallon. Be thankful. Will take your price there any day.

$3.89 gal in The Shenandoah Valley today. Mowing is killing me. The good wife is paying plenty for her commute in the Civic. I'm still convinced that the current Administration has an agenda to get prices to Europe levels. Maybe then we'll break down and buy a Volt. Heck the POTUS said he'll get one after his next term.

[Guest]

I The national debt has increased by three trillion dollars or so since Obama was inaugurated. But it's increased by a trillion dollars in the year or so since the Republicans took control of the House and the country's purse strings.

VK, You are wrong here. The Republicans do not have control of the purse strings.Budgets must originate in the House but do not go into effect until an agreement is reached between the House and the Senate and then signed by the President. It is now close to 1,000 days since we have had a budget. The Republican House has fulfilled its responsibility by passing several budgets. Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader has blocked these budgets from going to committee or coming to the Senate Floor for a vote.