Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    This subject first came up a couple of months ago when the price of gasoline went above $4 per gallon ...

    At that time the 'tin foil hat' crowd was speculating that, while election issues from Iraq policy to Iranian nuke reaction to environmental policies to 'subprime' mortgages / bankruptcies were getting a lot of news coverage and a lot of discussion in the context of the Presidential election campaign, that ultimately all of these points are secondary to US voters being able to afford filling their gas tanks and heating/cooling their homes.

    Here we are a couple of months later, and a new WSJ / NBC news poll shows the following ...

    (snip)"Energy Is Top Economic Issue for Voters
    Conservation Steps
    Increase, Poll Finds;
    Support for Drilling

    By STEPHEN POWER, SARA MURRAY and SIOBHAN HUGHES
    July 25, 2008; Page A3

    WASHINGTON -- Congress will likely break for the summer without passing legislation to curb high gasoline prices. But Americans are fashioning their own energy policy, founded on conservation and support for more production.

    A new Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll finds that energy -- including gasoline and utility costs -- ranks as the economic issue that voters say affects them the most personally.

    New data indicate Americans are conserving energy with fervor.

    The Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday that gasoline stocks posted a 2.8 million-barrel build in the week ended July 18, exceeding the 200,000-barrel increase forecast by analysts. In the past two weeks, the price of crude oil has fallen 14% from its New York Mercantile Exchange record close of $145.29 reached July 3, in part due to weakening demand. Thursday on the Nymex, crude oil for September delivery rose $1.05 per barrel, or 0.8%, to settle at $125.49.

    The prolonged stalemate over energy policy raises the stakes for both parties heading into the fall election. Republicans, emboldened by polls indicating rising support among Americans for increased domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, are trying to cast Congress's Democratic leaders and the party's presidential candidate, Barack Obama, as obstructionists responsible for the country's energy crisis."(snip)

    (snip)"Polls of likely voters in four battleground states, conducted this month by Quinnipiac University in partnership with The Wall Street Journal and Washingtonpost.com, show voters in each state say energy policy is more important to them than the war in Iraq.

    By margins of 22 to 31 percentage points, voters in each of the states -- Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota and Wisconsin -- said they support offshore oil drilling, according to the polls, which were released Thursday.

    Both candidates face political trade-offs in addressing offshore drilling. Exploring off the coasts is more politically popular in industrial Midwest states, where voters worry mostly about high gasoline costs. But in key coastal states, voters worry more about the environmental risks. The shift in voter sentiment in the Midwest toward favoring offshore drilling could give a boost to Sen. McCain, as it is one of the primary issues that sets his energy plan apart from Sen. Obama's.

    "These numbers point to an opening for Sen. McCain to redefine the economic issue as being about energy," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    In recent days, Sen. McCain's campaign has sought to highlight Sen. Obama's opposition to overturning a federal ban on offshore drilling, with a TV ad that shows a picture of a smiling Sen. Obama on the screen next to a gas pump while a voice blames "some in Washington" for "still saying 'no' to drilling in America."

    The Obama campaign has fired back by pointing out Sen. McCain's far longer record of serving in Washington. Environmental groups also note that a 2007 analysis by the EIA concluded that opening drilling in the areas covered by the federal moratorium "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude-oil and natural-gas production or prices before 2030."

    Prospects look dim for major changes in U.S. energy policy before Election Day.

    Congress remained stuck Thursday in a partisan stalemate over whether to open more of the U.S. to drilling, as the Bush administration and many congressional Republicans favor, or to tap the emergency's petroleum stockpile and limit speculative oil trading, as Democrats prefer."(snip)

    from

  2. #2
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    This subject first came up a couple of months ago when the price of gasoline went above $4 per gallon ...

    At that time the 'tin foil hat' crowd was speculating that, while election issues from Iraq policy to Iranian nuke reaction to environmental policies to 'subprime' mortgages / bankruptcies were getting a lot of news coverage and a lot of discussion in the context of the Presidential election campaign, that ultimately all of these points are secondary to US voters being able to afford filling their gas tanks and heating/cooling their homes.

    Here we are a couple of months later, and a new WSJ / NBC news poll shows the following ...

    (snip)"Energy Is Top Economic Issue for Voters
    Conservation Steps
    Increase, Poll Finds;
    Support for Drilling

    By STEPHEN POWER, SARA MURRAY and SIOBHAN HUGHES
    July 25, 2008; Page A3

    WASHINGTON -- Congress will likely break for the summer without passing legislation to curb high gasoline prices. But Americans are fashioning their own energy policy, founded on conservation and support for more production.

    A new Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll finds that energy -- including gasoline and utility costs -- ranks as the economic issue that voters say affects them the most personally.

    New data indicate Americans are conserving energy with fervor.

    The Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday that gasoline stocks posted a 2.8 million-barrel build in the week ended July 18, exceeding the 200,000-barrel increase forecast by analysts. In the past two weeks, the price of crude oil has fallen 14% from its New York Mercantile Exchange record close of $145.29 reached July 3, in part due to weakening demand. Thursday on the Nymex, crude oil for September delivery rose $1.05 per barrel, or 0.8%, to settle at $125.49.

    The prolonged stalemate over energy policy raises the stakes for both parties heading into the fall election. Republicans, emboldened by polls indicating rising support among Americans for increased domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, are trying to cast Congress's Democratic leaders and the party's presidential candidate, Barack Obama, as obstructionists responsible for the country's energy crisis."(snip)

    (snip)"Polls of likely voters in four battleground states, conducted this month by Quinnipiac University in partnership with The Wall Street Journal and Washingtonpost.com, show voters in each state say energy policy is more important to them than the war in Iraq.

    By margins of 22 to 31 percentage points, voters in each of the states -- Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota and Wisconsin -- said they support offshore oil drilling, according to the polls, which were released Thursday.

    Both candidates face political trade-offs in addressing offshore drilling. Exploring off the coasts is more politically popular in industrial Midwest states, where voters worry mostly about high gasoline costs. But in key coastal states, voters worry more about the environmental risks. The shift in voter sentiment in the Midwest toward favoring offshore drilling could give a boost to Sen. McCain, as it is one of the primary issues that sets his energy plan apart from Sen. Obama's.

    "These numbers point to an opening for Sen. McCain to redefine the economic issue as being about energy," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    In recent days, Sen. McCain's campaign has sought to highlight Sen. Obama's opposition to overturning a federal ban on offshore drilling, with a TV ad that shows a picture of a smiling Sen. Obama on the screen next to a gas pump while a voice blames "some in Washington" for "still saying 'no' to drilling in America."

    The Obama campaign has fired back by pointing out Sen. McCain's far longer record of serving in Washington. Environmental groups also note that a 2007 analysis by the EIA concluded that opening drilling in the areas covered by the federal moratorium "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude-oil and natural-gas production or prices before 2030."

    Prospects look dim for major changes in U.S. energy policy before Election Day.

    Congress remained stuck Thursday in a partisan stalemate over whether to open more of the U.S. to drilling, as the Bush administration and many congressional Republicans favor, or to tap the emergency's petroleum stockpile and limit speculative oil trading, as Democrats prefer."(snip)

    from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216...googlenews_wsj
    2030? That is 22 years from now. That is a retarded statement. We know how to build drilling rigs. We know how to build refineries. We know how to get petroleum to market. Maybe they are figuring 22 years of lawsuits. Now that wouldn't surprise me.

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    and in case there is any 'argument' about obstructionism ...



    (snip)"WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

    Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "

    If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation's energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn't mean the country shouldn't consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling -- environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?

    When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

    Meanwhile, the dispute has snarled progress on spending bills for fear of having drilling amendments attached. Citing "the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called off committee consideration of spending bills on which Republicans were threatening to offer drilling amendments. The result threatens to be the first time since at least 1950 that lawmakers will go home for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill.

    If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote? "(snip)


    2030? That is 22 years from now. That is a retarded statement. We know how to build drilling rigs. We know how to build refineries. We know how to get petroleum to market. Maybe they are figuring 22 years of lawsuits. Now that wouldn't surprise me.
    One of the leading companies on offshore drilling rig technology, Schlumberger, is on record as saying that 'typical' new offshore wells can be producing 4 years after approval - while 'difficult' drilling areas ( super deep or other complications) may require six years. But Schlumberger agreed with your assessment, that the most time consuming aspect of offshore drilling will be gaining approvals for new wells and then fighting off the inevitable environmental court challenges.


    Circling back on point, the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the mere 'threat' that America is ready to start pumping our own oil will have major ramifications on world oil prices as well as on the world economic paradigm of the uber-rich. The reason for this of course is the potential effect that pumping our own oil will have on the flow of US dollars to oil exporting countries. American gasoline buyers have been generally kept unaware of the fact that, of the $4 they are spending on a gallon of gasoline, somewhere around $2 of every $4 purchase actually goes for the purchase of crude oil from which the gasoline was refined. If that crude oil originated in Saudi or Venezuela or Iran, this means that the $2 'permanently' leaves the USA and goes into the account of a Saudi sovereign wealth fund or Hugo Chavez or Akmenijad (sp).

    However, if that crude oil originated in Alaska or Texas ( or potentially California / Florida / a bunch of other states if the offshore drilling ban were to be lifted), then the $2 goes into US federal / state coffers. This in turn provides $2 worth of revenue that doesn't need to be raised via taxes on American / state businesses and individuals (the fact that Alaska and Texas have no personal income tax is no coincidence BTW). This in turn reduces America's trade deficit. This in turn reduces the amount of money that the government must borrow from foreign lenders ( which future taxpayers must in turn pay back with interest) in order to 'balance' its budget.

    The 'tin foil hat' crowd would also tell you that a major opponent to offshore drilling is the US investment banking industry. If the reason for their opposition isn't obvious, it should be ! With America importing most of its crude oil, the bankers are able to earn a 'cut' from every international money transfer, from every reinvestment by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, from every additional US treasury bond sold to foreign investors etc. as the US gov't must 'borrow' more money. But if American begins to pump its own oil, the crude oil money would then flow directly to the federal and state governments, cutting the investment bankers out of the 'loop' as well as cutting out their 'fees'.

    It would appear that, whether mainstream media acknowledges the point or not, energy prices - and specifically gasoline prices, heating oil prices, utility bill prices - are going to play a major role in 'swing states' during the upcoming presidential election. For that reason, Obama, Pelosi et al are running a big risk by stone-walling offshore drilling - and stone-walling the mere discussion of offshore drilling can't be interpreted as anything other than 100% obstructionism !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-26-2008 at 06:26 PM.

  4. #4
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Pelosi can talk shit all she wants - her's is of the few states (and populations) most effected by this.

    Soon the conservatives will be playing the game about "Well we can't do anything because of the democrats." And when suzy soccer mom can't afford her brood's game day shit is going to hit the fan for all those old hippies out there.

  5. #5
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    ANWR is less than 80 miles from an EXISTING pipeline.

    Conservation alone will NOT result in lower prices and an adequate supply.
    Neither will solar, wind or biofuels. Even Mr. Pickens says we have to drill offshore and in ANWR.
    Drilling alone will not solve the problem.

    We require a "kitchen sink" type program- more nukes; better fuel efficiency; more alternatives; more REFINERIES and more drilling.

    The ones who do not "get it" are Pelosi; Waxman; Feinstein and Boxer.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    The ones who do not "get it" are Pelosi; Waxman; Feinstein and Boxer.
    It's very ironic that, if the state of California were to approve offshore drilling, the resulting crude oil revenues would probably mean that for every $4 gallon of gasoline Californians buy, their state income taxes could be reduced by $1 ! Of course, given California's 35 billion dollar state budget deficit, the $1 in crude oil revenues will probably be needed to dig out from under California's mountain of muni bond debt.

    But you are probably correct. In the interest of liberal idealism, California will probably wind up maintaining the offshore drilling ban even if it is lifted at the federal level ... and increasing state income taxes by $1 to compensate for their growing budget deficit. As the nationwide poll 'led off' with, at some point California voters are going to be forced to rebel against ponderous tax increases. Well at least those Californians that actually PAY income taxes i.e. the 'middle class'. But given prevailing California election results, the major option open to 'middle class' Californians is to become EX-Californians - something that is occurring in increasing numbers ! Perhaps that is the vision of these California politicians - a state population demographic with 5% rich and powerful, and 95% poor and subservient.

  7. #7
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Do states get a veto on offshore drilling ? If the Feds issued a permit to drill off California, could "Ahhnold" stop it ? I don't know the answer and I'm curious.

    Generally, Federal law trumps State statutes and regs.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    ^^^ the way the proposal to lift the offshore ban was being discussed previously, the removal of federal restrictions would in no way limit the rights of the separate states to still impose restrictions of their own. This would be different if Washington were discussing the passage of a law MANDATING offshore drilling in the national interest, in which case the federal law would supersede laws of the separate states. But what's actually being discussed is the repeal of an existing federal law, which does nothing to repeal / limit state laws against offshore drilling in their 'territorial waters'.

  9. #9
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ the way the proposal to lift the offshore ban was being discussed previously, the removal of federal restrictions would in no way limit the rights of the separate states to still impose restrictions of their own. This would be different if Washington were discussing the passage of a law MANDATING offshore drilling in the national interest, in which case the federal law would supersede laws of the separate states. But what's actually being discussed is the repeal of an existing federal law, which does nothing to repeal / limit state laws against offshore drilling in their 'territorial waters'.
    State law is only good in their territorial waters which I THINK is only 3 miles out.
    Beyond that is under Federal jurisdiction. Using directional drilling, any deposits within those waters could easiily be accessed from Federal leaseholds.

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    ^^^ you're probably right !

    Circling back to the original point, I wonder just how many Californians would support a call for offshore drilling. The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the 'rich' don't care about the impact on tax revenues they simply don't want to see oil platforms out their picture windows ... that the 'poor' don't have any financial motivation since their social welfare benefits / checks will be unaffected and they don't pay anything significant in the way of income taxes to begin with. It would only be California businesses and middle class workers who would see direct benefit to their profitability / standard of living if California offshore drilling were approved, via potential tax reductions or at least the avoidance of additional tax increases.

    In the context of a national presidential election, however, there are a lot of states out there that don't share California's high percentage of 'rich' people and high percentage of 'poor' people. In those other states, 70%+ of the population works for a living, and most of them actually pay significant amounts of income tax, buy gasoline by the tankful, and pay the full shot for heating / cooling / utility bills (as opposed to receiving social welfare subsidies).

  11. #11
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ you're probably right !

    Circling back to the original point, I wonder just how many Californians would support a call for offshore drilling. The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the 'rich' don't care about the impact on tax revenues they simply don't want to see oil platforms out their picture windows ... that the 'poor' don't have any financial motivation since their social welfare benefits / checks will be unaffected and they don't pay anything significant in the way of income taxes to begin with. It would only be California businesses and middle class workers who would see direct benefit to their profitability / standard of living if California offshore drilling were approved, via potential tax reductions or at least the avoidance of additional tax increases.

    In the context of a national presidential election, however, there are a lot of states out there that don't share California's high percentage of 'rich' people and high percentage of 'poor' people. In those other states, 70%+ of the population works for a living, and most of them actually pay significant amounts of income tax, buy gasoline by the tankful, and pay the full shot for heating / cooling / utility bills (as opposed to receiving social welfare subsidies).

    I think you're overlooking something. We have the richest "poor" people in the world, many of whom own cars and have to fill up just like everyone else. Additionally, seniors are getting clobbered with rising energy, food and utility costs
    on fixed incomes. Many of them drive.

    Interesting article in today's NYT where many countries are subsidizing gas and diesel prices. India, China, Venezuela and Indonesia, just to name the most populous subsidizers, all subsidize fuel and thus their citizens do NOT pay market prices and thus have little to no incentive to conserve. In other words, their increased energy use is being subsidized by their governments. this has resulted in a lessening of the effect of decreased gas usage by the U.S., Canada and other Western countries.

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    ^^^ I was already aware of the subsidies in place in China, India etc. However, I had run across the issue in the context of competitiveness of exported products. It's certainly possible to sell products which are energy intensive (like steel / aluminum / glass / fertilizers / chemicals etc.), as well as productions that are oil intensive (like plastics, chemicals), when the manufacturer's cost of oil / electricity is subsidized by the foreign gov't at price levels that are 1/2 of those in the US / Canada / Western Europe. While your statement about individual energy usage is undoubtedly true, at this stage I am sure that energy usage by industries is a much larger component in China, India etc.

    But circling back on topic, yes you are obviously correct that retirees and some social welfare recipient 'poor' do in fact have gas tanks to fill. Even if the money to fill those gas tanks is coming from the gov't till in the form of Social Security checks or Welfare checks, it still creates a 'budget squeeze' ... and some retirees and 'poor' may indeed cast their votes on the issue of high energy prices over all other factors.

  13. #13
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ I was already aware of the subsidies in place in China, India etc. However, I had run across the issue in the context of competitiveness of exported products. It's certainly possible to sell products which are energy intensive (like steel / aluminum / glass / fertilizers / chemicals etc.), as well as productions that are oil intensive (like plastics, chemicals), when the manufacturer's cost of oil / electricity is subsidized by the foreign gov't at price levels that are 1/2 of those in the US / Canada / Western Europe. While your statement about individual energy usage is undoubtedly true, at this stage I am sure that energy usage by industries is a much larger component in China, India etc.

    But circling back on topic, yes you are obviously correct that retirees and some social welfare recipient 'poor' do in fact have gas tanks to fill. Even if the money to fill those gas tanks is coming from the gov't till in the form of Social Security checks or Welfare checks, it still creates a 'budget squeeze' ... and some retirees and 'poor' may indeed cast their votes on the issue of high energy prices over all other factors.
    Thank you. The article in y-day's N.Y. Times focused on the benefits to consumers in countries where fuel is subsidized. You are correct in that subsidized energy for industry gives them a great competitive advantage and removes incentives to conserve and be energy efficient. Do you think we could get Al Gore and the climate change crew to visit and straighten them out ? He is an Oscar winner and Nobel laureate.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 07-29-2008 at 10:41 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    ^^^ right now all you need to be to see the results of subsidized energy prices and de-facto non-existant pollution / emissions enforcement is an Olympic Athlete LOL ! See

    as to 'straightening China / India out', the Chinese and Indian gov't officials understand clearly that a growing economy ... and the relative political stability that results from people who are employed and enjoying a rising standard of living ... and therefore not plotting revolutions or protesting in the street ... is worth FAR more to them than clean air. The Chinese gov't is already running into 'political unrest' problems due to the shutting down of some industries near Beijing in an attempt to allow Olympic athletes to see the end of the 'track' they are running on - which is the real reason that 100,000 Chinese cops and soldiers are now stationed in the Olympic venue cities.

    Back on topic (sort of), the US consumer is now beginning to see the results of high energy cost components resulting in higher prices for damn near everything that isn't imported from China or India. US corporations with any sort of an energy component are seeing their profit margins squeezed down to near zero, which they are responding to with price increases plus cutbacks on number of employees, or with bankruptcy and total elimination of employees. A couple of companies that immediately come to mind are Bennigans (which locked the doors on every restaurant in 32 states this morning), and Starbucks (which is closing 600+ stores).

    Utility bills are skyrocketing. Gasoline costs for commuting has skyrocketed. Oil futures pricing for people who heat with fuel oil has hit their family budgets like a sledgehammer this winter. As a result, America's standard of living is now in decline - and many people must now decide what former basics of everyday American life must be given up in order to afford the absolute necessities. Throw in steadily rising unemployment, and a (potential) reduction in gov't social services spending due to state budget woes, and we have all of the ingredients for a whole lot of unrest right here in America in the near future. Arguably, they are going to express their displeasure at the ballot box, before expressing it in the street !
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-29-2008 at 09:58 AM.

  15. #15
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Well, N.Y. and N.Y.C. are both staring at multi-billion dollar deficits. Neither wil be closed with tax increases as N.Y. taxpayers are pretty much taxed to the max.

    The Federal Highway Trust Fund is going broke because of fewer miles driven as a direct result of higher fuel prices. A large chunk of the 18.4 cent Federal gasoline tax ( 22 cents on diesel) funds highways and bridges and a smaller share funds mass transit. So much so that the Secretary of Transportation has proposed a loan from the "transit" fund to the "highway" fund.

    While there is plenty of blame to go around ( Bush & Cheney get an "F" afaic ; "oilmen" hmmph ! All G.W. oil companies went bust. ), we are now suffering the effects of not drilling in ANWR; not drilling offshore; not building refineries; not building new nuclear plants and putting a lot of anthracite and oil shale out of the reach of development. The primary movers behind all this "conservation" were and are the Dems. Ironically, McCain can't make the sort of political hay that Reagan could because he SUPPORTED a lot of these measures.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - US voters' #1 concern is high energy prices

    Nancy Pelosi certainly doesn't 'get it' ...



    (snip)"Pelosi: 'I'm trying to save the planet'
    By DAVID ROGERS | 7/29/08 4:34 AM EST

    Just call her Nancy the Navigator.

    “I have always loved longitude,” Nancy Pelosi says before breaking into laughter. “I love latitude; it’s in the stars. But longitude, it’s about time. ... Time and clocks and all the rest of that have always been a fascination for me.”

    “The Geographer,” Jan Vermeer’s portrait of a Dutch mapmaker staring out a window with a sea chart before him, is a favorite of the House speaker. But mostly, Pelosi is drawn to the explorers of the Age of Discovery — Balboa, Magellan, Vasco da Gama — all struggling at sea without an accurate way to measure East-West progress. And she is fascinated by the historic melding of science and politics in the race to find a solution, the modern chronometer — much as today’s world seeks answers such as an electric car battery in the energy debate that now consumes both Pelosi and Congress.

    “Whoever makes that discovery, rules,” she says.

    Eighteen months after taking power, the California Democrat will need to summon all her own navigation skills for the waters ahead.

    She hit the national television circuit Monday with her new book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” Next month, she’ll chair the convention in Denver that will nominate Barack Obama — “the next president of the United States. I feel very certain of that,” Pelosi says.

    From Medicare to housing to the new GI Bill, her Democrats have driven the legislative train more than the White House has in recent months. And even when the Democratic Party gave ground to the White House on terrorism surveillance, Pelosi’s credentials were such that Obama felt safer embracing the deal — after she did so first publicly.

    Yet with this success comes new danger — like explorers lost at sea without longitude. Until now, Pelosi has been perceived as a counterweight to President Bush. But after the Democratic convention in Denver, and going into November, voters will take a closer measure of her performance — and fairness — since Democrats could very well be the new ruling party, controlling Congress and the White House in January.

    At the same time, the wave of change her party has ridden could come crashing down. The pressures facing the nation — troubled financial markets, falling housing prices and rising energy and food costs — are genuinely historic. The next president will inherit a projected deficit of close to $500 billion, and Democrats admit privately that they were caught off guard by the spike in gasoline prices and the hardship it has imposed on middle-income and working-class voters.

    With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

    “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

    “I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.” "(snip)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-25-2010, 09:18 AM
  2. weekend commentary - Zogby poll of Obama voters
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 03:58 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 04:00 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 06:20 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 07:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •