The Democrats are all for the children as long as they don’t expect gas to put in a car. Economic stability is enhanced by the ability people to roam the largest possible area to seek the best possible job. If these opportunity circles shrink or are limited by only public transportation, the economy will express the phenomenon by contracting. We must either cut our energy use in half in the next 63 years or we must expand our per capita energy availability to twice what it is now. Making it more expensive only assures that the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. Only malcontents and social saboteurs would want that.

By Danny L. Newton on 08.01.08 10:10 am

You didn’t answer the question. The oil reserves America has could only amount to about 5% of Americas oil demand and if lack of domestic production is such an issue, why is America exporting 13% of it’s oil – tewice as much as we could ever produce? It’s a BS political argument designed for the ignorant.

By ellen on 08.01.08 10:37 am

Ellen-It’s far greater than that. I’ll put the numbers together for you. But it won’t be until after the radio program. And you speak of economics, do you know how open markets work?

Did you answer any of my questions?

By the way, other just saying “it won’t work,” what’s your solution? Wind? Solar? Nuclear? And what time frame are we talking about? Right now we’re sitting on our own resources as we import greater numbers. What’s your answer?

By Terry on 08.01.08 12:39 pm

Where have the Republicans been for 8 yrs? Where have the Republicans been when Cheney was taking his marching orders and sucking up to big oil 8 yrs ago – now that we find out Exxon has reported record profits and spend only 1% of their earnings on research into alternative fuels. Where were the Republicans when they voted against fuel standards fo automakers? If American innovation could put a man on the moon 39 yrs ago, just think what could have been accomplished under a responsible and innovative US energy program that put innovation above corporate greed, arrogance and agression.

By ellen on 08.01.08 9:56 pm

Republicans obstruct vote to lower gas prices

House Republican leaders pressured 13 of their members to switch their vote from “yes” to “no” during Wednesday’s vote on the Commodity Markets and Transparency Act (H.R. 6604), a bill designed to rein in oil profiteers. Thanks to these strong arm tactics and weak members, the bill to lower gasoline prices by controlling profiteers failed by a vote of 276-151, falling ten votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage under the suspension of the House rules.
Once again, the GOP leadership sided with oil profiteers and used their power to help keep oil prices and profits high, while hurting the average American.

Then they have the balls to pull yesterday’s stunt and blame the Democrats. What is wrong with these people? Why are some people so ill informed that they fall for such a stunt, even celebrate it? Are they too stupid to remember the Bush energy policies for the past 8 years that put us in this situation? Can’t they remember the last Republican Congress – the 109th “Do Nothing” Congress that met less time in session, failed to pass budget resolutions and appropriations bills, provided no serious oversight of the disaster in Iraq, no major substantive policy achievements, and boasted 18 corrupt Republicans that were investigated/convicted or indicted (including 2 that went to the slammer: Ney and Cunningham)?

By William on 08.02.08 2:30 am

And the last 1-1/2 years of Democrat control have been different how?

Minimum wage is now raised, but still below what the current market for unskilled labor already was? (Only reason Bush didn’t veto, in my opinion)

Exxon is recording record quarterly profits of $11B, but they are also paying $32B in taxes in the same quarter. They are world-wide, so not all of that tax money is coming back to the US. Nevertheless, it is government itself that is the greediest profiteer. It is government itself that will not turn down the money as it continues to hurt the average American. Both of the Big Two parties engage and revel in it, because it benefits them temporarily. It damages our country permanently.

By Eric Holcombe on 08.02.08 10:23 am

Assuming the oil companies get the golden ring of ANWR and the Atlantic shelf fields, what would you guess would be the price of a gallon of regular unleaded by election day?

By the way, Rush Limbaugh this week, in response to a caller’s reference to regular unleaded, replied, “What!? Are people still using that stuff?”

By SemiPundit on 08.03.08 2:29 am

Open and relatively free markets. They should be free but I take what I can get.

More oil = lower prices (Supply and demand)
More refineries = lower gas prices (We don’t pay others to refine and transport it)
The ability to drill our OWN resources and be able to enjoy the additional independence is well worth hearing the enviro-nuts cry and whine about the rare and beautiful Alaskan Mud Dauber that might be affected by off shore drilling.

I can’t understand why everyone is so anti US self-sufficiency. It wasn’t too long ago that Congress was telling us we had to import all of our labor too! We couldn’t get the jobs done without them. Now we can’t get to work without imports. The oil and gas has to be imported. The workers have to be imported. And then people scream when businesses figure out that it’s just easier to send the jobs out instead of bringing everything else in. Quit whining and get out of the way. This is a great country in spite of you.

By BCB on 08.03.08 8:42 am

The likes of Limbaugh, Boortz, numerous figures in Congress and the Repubican press have convinced every rube and his cousin that a solid knowledge of economics now consists simply of supply and demand. That amounts to about one day in an Econ 101 course. This excludes present company, of course.

Given an equal opportunity to sell domestically produced oil at world market prices or at a discount for American citizens to use, which course is most likely for the oil companies?

By SemiPundit on 08.03.08 9:24 am

p.s.- There is no such thing as a free market.

By SemiPundit on 08.03.08 9:44 am

And there will NEVER be a free market as long as the politicians (especially the Dems) have their way.

So supply and demand has nothing to do with this? Why do so many countries increase their demand while the supply stays the same and the price of oil goes up? Don’t blame speculators; did anyone blame speculators when the housing market went through the roof? How about the “dot com” bubble? Wasn’t that pure speculation? Why did those bubbles go bust? Because the supply went up and outstripped the demand coupled with the economy in the case of housing. And in the case of the “dot coms” they weren’t really supplying anything so the demand didn’t stay. I remember people celebrating the rise in prices on both of those “commodities” and yet condemnation meets speculators in this case. Why? To hide the truth which can’t stand up to the agenda of the “green religion.”

Let the market take care of the market. We artificially manipulate the food markets, the housing markets, the lending markets, the labor markets, the healthcare market and now the oil market. I’m just glad that our government, particularly those that control the House and Senate, is so dang successful at working things well. With shining examples of their accomplishments, it’s a no-brainer. I am actually considering turning over every aspect of my life to them so that I can reach my full potential through government regulation.

By BCB on 08.03.08 5:58 pm

Consider the expenses that “don’t count” in the government’s calculation of inflation:

Food – Housing – Energy

It is the very fact that these very essential commodities “don’t count” that causes me to be suspicious of how those markets are being corrupted. We are told inflation is 2-4% while the prices for these items skyrocket. The government has essentially given consent to abuse these markets because the government greatly interferes with each of them – to the profit of a select few. Both of the Big Two parties are guilty. The media is a willing accomplice and regurgitates the false inflation data year after year.

The housing side is collapsing. The jig is up, but we the taxpayers are paying more and more bailouts for J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve Cartel.

Fuel is ridiculous – with oil price not necessarily responding to supply, demand, refining capability, latest tiff between Israel and any Muslim state, weather forecast, etc. the same way on any given day. We are depending on floating our debt to foreign countries by forcing them to pay with U.S. dollars for every drop of oil sold by OPEC nations. Which is why we import the lion’s share of our oil from Canada and Mexico. The 911 terrorists in Saudi are a distant third. We NEED the rest of the world to buy their energy from OPEC and pay with US dollars.

Food is screwed up with the cost of fuel and the ethanol boondoggle. Which has screwed up soybeans (less supply because growing ethanol corn is more profitable) which has put biodiesel out of business which gives us more reliance upon foreign oil. The E10 gasoline is 90% the efficiency of the pure gas in unmodified engines, so you are burning the same amount of gas (oil) you did before – but the corn industry is making out like bandits (pun intended).

But, here’s your “stimulus” check…now go cash it, buy some lottery tickets and go back to sleep. Don’t worry about the funds, we can print more.

By Eric Holcombe on 08.03.08 9:05 pm

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
Thomas Jefferson

By Rick Forman on 08.04.08 8:11 am

I actually agree with the market economics part of this argument. But poor old McCain just got destroyed by Paris Hilton. Her fake campaign ad in response to the McCain celebrity ad is priceless. First time I’ve ever taken her seriously for even a second. Okay, it was only a milisecond and then I returned to wanting her to eat something.

By Casey on 08.05.08 6:11 pm

Casey, I loved the ad too but also enjoyed the ad because she attacked the celebrity aspect and not the racial one. She also did not attack it because McCain made it sexual. I guess poor little Paris is smarter than some of those talking heads that are trying to make it out that B-HO is, yet again, the victim of racial politics.

Heck, that and it was just funny!

By BCB on 08.07.08 6:02 am

BCB,

I agree. And I’m a social liberal and economic conservative, but I just can’t see how the McCain ad was racist. People on the left are far too quick to throw the racism card these days.

By Casey on 08.07.08 9:37 am

Many of those that are trying to sell the McCain add as “racial” are the same ones that generally don’t want to assign blame on a real person but instead place it on circumstances or a nameless, faceless “they.”

Look at the recent Knoxville church shooting. That man made a conscious decision to do a terrible awful thing. Whether he has bad wiring or not in his head, no one made him do it or even suggested it in a way that should have made him to do it. And yet, that same type of person that wants to make the entire B-HO campaign about race is trying to blame everyone else but the nutcase with the gun. If Hannity and others have THAT much control over people, how did Pelosi get elected? Why are we not all drones, mindlessly pulling the “R” lever in the voting booth? No, these dangerous liberals want to place blame everywhere but on the individual.

Once they recognize that blame can and should be placed on the individual, many of their social programs no longer hold water. Or at least no longer hold favor with the American Wage Earner.

By BCB on 08.07.08 11:08 am