DescentBB

CUDA should be able to remember this one, although he's getting older and the grandkids hit him on the head a lot .....over two years back, I predicted on another forum that the Dow would be up to 13,000 by the New Hampshire Presidential primary. Now, they went and moved the primary date from this week back into January, but here we are, and the Dow is at 12974 to start the week........Now, I'm not posting this little tale to request congratualations, but it dovetails nicely with this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46454352/ns ... d_economy/


coupled with the many analyses from the past week or so which state that the Congressional cave-ins to Obama of late are due to resignation to him winning a second term(and focusing now on saving their own hides with a 12% approval rating), I wonder if maybe some of the goofy furor will get muted. Likely not, as this Presidential season has approached sheer silliness, but we can hope.........

Interesting article.

Speaking of predictions; several months ago when the first crop of GOP candidates surfaced, I moaned, then teased an Obama-hating friend of mine about the next election. I said Obama would get reelected by a landslide not seen since Regan beat Mondale. I still believe it. I'm excited to see the results whether I'm right or wrong.

Note: I have no party affiliation. I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. I don't know who I will vote for in 2012. When I voted for my state elections 2 years ago I checked boxes for someone in every registered party. Coincidentally, I had been working part-time for an independent voter organization whose responsibility it was to research all candidates and compile their voting records / policy statements into a rather extensive mailer. Made life really easy at the booth knowing everyone's stance!

refresh my memory...where did congress cave to Obama?

woodchip wrote:refresh my memory...where did congress cave to Obama?

passing Payroll tax cut and extending Unemployment bennies, both of which they were vocally opposed to. There were two or three other minor issues in the last two weeks, but you are quite capable of keeping up on current events. It's easy, just switch off Fox and read some newspapers. Keep it conservative even, I'd suggest the Manchester Union Leader and the Christian Science Monitor, for starters.


edit, from AP, two of the minor items:
A House-approved measure letting states test unemployment benefit applicants for drug testing was pared back, permitting the tests only for people who lost their jobs due to drug use or whose new jobs would require such tests.

Those seeking unemployment coverage would have to show they are actively seeking work, but another GOP-backed provision forcing them to pursue high school equivalency diplomas was abandoned.

So if one party actually concedes to the other and something gets done in congress, and it’s painted as “cave-ins” by the media, political pundits and alike…

Where is the incentive to compromise?

If you only knew how that sounds, after complaining about the state of congress.

I thought the same thing. It's made out that if one side compromises for progress they are painted as punks. Lotta good that will do I have to give props to the republicans for this. Even in the face of the venomous, they still did what was right for the country, and not their political appearances.

Like any politician from either side would not pass the renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Com'on Slick, do stop with the inane party babble and give some really good examples.

Spidey wrote:So if one party actually concedes to the other and something gets done in congress, and it’s painted as “cave-ins” by the media, political pundits and alike…

Where is the incentive to compromise?

If you only knew how that sounds, after complaining about the state of congress.

probably, you are right, and I am being harsh in using the word 'caving', but, after 3 years of stubbornly resisting any compromise on damn near everything, the tune has changed. Call it what you will, my core point remains.....it seems like some folks are starting to read the tea leaves.

callmeslick wrote:CUDA should be able to remember this one, although he's getting older and the grandkids hit him on the head a lot .....over two years back, I predicted on another forum that the Dow would be up to 13,000 by the New Hampshire Presidential primary. Now, they went and moved the primary date from this week back into January, but here we are, and the Dow is at 12974 to start the week........Now, I'm not posting this little tale to request congratualations, but it dovetails nicely with this article:

That may be all and well, but I see the annual Memorial Day-gas-price-ratchet-up syndrome going on ($5.00 a gallon this year) and we have the Koch Brothers wanting their pipeline so bad they're probably manipulating the market just to raise gas prices as a leverage against Obama. Top that off with the instability in the Middle East, the annual market speculation on oil prices and a presidential election coming up, the Dems will have a perfect storm that might sink their ship.

agreed, if Gas hit $5 a gallon then Obama is done. I read that every $.25 increase at the pump takes $25 billion out of the economy. I smell another recession.

tunnelcat wrote:
That may be all and well, but I see the annual Memorial Day-gas-price-ratchet-up syndrome going on ($5.00 a gallon this year) and we have the Koch Brothers wanting their pipeline so bad they're probably manipulating the market just to raise gas prices as a leverage against Obama. Top that off with the instability in the Middle East, the annual market speculation on oil prices and a presidential election coming up, the Dems will have a perfect storm that might sink their ship.

Don't faint TC but Bill O'Rielly agrees with you. He's been pointing out that alot of our refined gasoline is being shipped to China. so as we become more efficient in our use of automobiles and use less gas, instead of driving prices down the oil/gas companies have decided to ship their product out of the country....which results in less gasoline here....which results in higher pump prices.

If this action gets Obama voted out of office, then I can bear it for a few more months.

Wrong wrong wrong. America is currently a net EXPORTER of gasoline.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 52298812/1

Face it, the gas companies give a ★■◆● about you and me. It's whoever will pay the most money, as it has always been. Demand in America is down, so they are shipping it overseas instead of saving up for a potential supply disruption here. Then, when there is an actual disruption, we will all be torn to shred at the pump. Awesome ain't it??

another article from last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

Or they could just take oil off the commodities market???

woodchip wrote:Don't faint TC but Bill O'Rielly agrees with you. He's been pointing out that alot of our refined gasoline is being shipped to China. so as we become more efficient in our use of automobiles and use less gas, instead of driving prices down the oil/gas companies have decided to ship their product out of the country....which results in less gasoline here....which results in higher pump prices.

I really hope I'm wrong and Americans will look past the rising gas prices as the "It's all Obama's fault and we need to kick him out of office for just that one stupid reason". Doesn't matter which party controls the White House people, gas prices are going to go up because the Oil Companies want global pricing and we can't do nothin' about it, except find a better renewable energy source. Besides, I loathe Bill O'Rielly.

Zuruck wrote:Or they could just take oil off the commodities market???

That'd be nice. No more market manipulation. But, it doesn't work that way.........yet.

tunnelcat wrote:
I really hope I'm wrong and Americans will look past the rising gas prices as the "It's all Obama's fault and we need to kick him out of office for just that one stupid reason". Doesn't matter which party controls the White House people, gas prices are going to go up because the Oil Companies want global pricing and we can't do nothin' about it, except find a better renewable energy source.

Ummm when oil prices spiked upwards, Bush simply allowed more drilling in the gulf. Oil prices then dropped. To bad Obama is so lip locked with the greens or he could done something similar.

Uhh no woodchip, when oil spiked the economy went into a tailspin and people started driving less. supply went up and instead of prices continuing to go down, the nice oil companies just started shipping american oil overseas to china...how's that for poetic justice? ★■◆● is literally under American soil and it goes to China as well, mineral rights are lovely...

Nope Zuruck, it was all about speculation. Oil prices increase by the speculators thinking crude prices will increase. Oil is a commodity and as any commodity, rumours will trigger price changes. Let the perception that something will alter the price of oil and the speculators will bail in a heartbeat.
So in 2008:

"When the cost of oil reached $147 a barrel in July 2008, President George W. Bush acted to quickly bring down the cost of oil. He lifted the Executive Ban on offshore drilling on Monday 14 July 2008. For the next 3 days, crude oil prices tumbled. The price of oil dropped to $32 a barrel by December 2008."

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog- ... l-drilling

We are still driving less and using ever more efficient cars but the price for a barrel of oil continues to increase because...ta da...rumors and perceptions drive it upward. Rumors of a Iran war being the biggest driver. So what it will take is something like Bush did to change the perception that oil supplies will not be hindered. So far having a clueless street organizer in charge is not helping. Once Obama gets it through his thick head that his re-election depends on the price of gas, maybe he will do something about it. Having Baghdad Carney tell the world that the keystone pipeline veto was really the Republicans fault ain't going to cut it.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
I really hope I'm wrong and Americans will look past the rising gas prices as the "It's all Obama's fault and we need to kick him out of office for just that one stupid reason". Doesn't matter which party controls the White House people, gas prices are going to go up because the Oil Companies want global pricing and we can't do nothin' about it, except find a better renewable energy source.

Ummm when oil prices spiked upwards, Bush simply allowed more drilling in the gulf. Oil prices then dropped. To bad Obama is so lip locked with the greens or he could done something similar.

Too bad what you're claiming is pure BS. We're producing more oil right now than anytime in the past. Projections appear to be around 2.05 million barrels of oil in 2011, the highest since 1940. It started rising in 2009 and has kept climbing. The number of oil fields has quadrupled in the last three years to 1272. We've got more working oil rigs than the entire rest of the world! So you're claim that Obama is anti-drilling is wrong. This rise is the usual annual spring speculation that's run by greed and the desire to have global prices set by the oil companies. The Koch Brothers just want their damned pipeline and they have the power to force their desire through price manipulation as well.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/02/20/u-s- ... ojections/

If you look at the charts for the past decade, the only significant reduction in oil or gasoline prices was in late 2008 to early 2009.
Why? Very simply a lack of money for speculation. Most of the players that drove the prices outside of expected supply/demand pricing got burnt on margin calls in the dropping stock market. Thus, they didn't have the cash or the credit needed to play the spot oil or gas markets. Once they recouped, the prices rose again, and fluctuated with every little perceived pressure source. Right now, that source is Iran. Steadily pushing prices up has been, and will continue to be, the ever-increasing demand from India and China. That, one cannot do a damned thing about.

I have no clue why Woodchip made the assesment he did, likely political blinders too tight, but reality doesn't bear his claims out.
Every year of the Obama administration has seen oil production rise, and every year has surpassed the best output levels of the 8 years during the Bush Admin......

Damn, if a barrel went down to $32, why the hell wasn't a gallon around $1.25? Goddamn I hate the oil companies, I hate them so much.

Zuruck wrote:Damn, if a barrel went down to $32, why the hell wasn't a gallon around $1.25? ******* I hate the oil companies, I hate them so much.

At the time, a lot of refinery capacity was off-line. Not the case at present, as noted.....we are exporting refined petroleum products.

callmeslick wrote:If you look at the charts for the past decade, the only significant reduction in oil or gasoline prices was in late 2008 to early 2009.
Why? Very simply a lack of money for speculation. Most of the players that drove the prices outside of expected supply/demand pricing got burnt on margin calls in the dropping stock market. Thus, they didn't have the cash or the credit needed to play the spot oil or gas markets. Once they recouped, the prices rose again, and fluctuated with every little perceived pressure source. Right now, that source is Iran. Steadily pushing prices up has been, and will continue to be, the ever-increasing demand from India and China. That, one cannot do a damned thing about.

Pretty much agrees with what I said

callmeslick wrote:I have no clue why Woodchip made the assesment he did, likely political blinders too tight, but reality doesn't bear his claims out.
Every year of the Obama administration has seen oil production rise, and every year has surpassed the best output levels of the 8 years during the Bush Admin......

Since I made Obama part of my post Slick now see's a threat to his love interest so he makes the above reply. The reason oil production is increasing is due to the lands Bush opened up to drilling. What areas has Obama opened up? OTOH shutting down the gulf to drilling did nothing to help and stopping the Keystone project also did nothing to help. Slick is good at trying to use the smoke and mirror technique to try and sway opinion. Sadly for him most of us see through it.

What Obama is failing to do is remove the "Perception" he is doing nothing to fix the problem. I realize, as Obama puts it, this is all very complex but guess what Mr. President...this is why you get paid the big bucks and can hire whom ever you want to help you address the problem. I suggest you hire a few people with real world experience instead of academics. You might start with Joe the Plumber.

Good for Bush the Oil Company Stooge, bad for anyone or any municipality that has to obtain their drinking water from underground wells anywhere nearby. Guess how they're getting that previously unreachable oil out of the ground now? By hydraulic fracking, the method of choice for natural gas drillers. Oh, we'll be able to continue to drive our cars in the near future, but we'll all pay a heavy price, and not in high gas prices. If they do this in California, earthquakes may increase too, especially if they use sand fracking. Maybe Obama has thought of all these consequences, although I somehow don't think so.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011 ... rey_ca.php

Fracking is a big deal around this part of PA, too, since the state contains a part of the Marcellus Shale formation. When you look at the process, there's a big potential for really nasty stuff to wind up in well-water.

Um...TC, I like you, I really do but you need to expand your search parameters:

Obama's Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson, echoed these facts to Congress in May, telling a U.S. House panel that "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."

And last week, Rebecca Wodder -- Obama's nominee for a post at the Interior Department -- told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that "like Administrator Jackson, I am not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/o ... ring/40602

slick wrote:Every year of the Obama administration has seen oil production rise, and every year has surpassed the best output levels of the 8 years during the Bush Admin......

As White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week "Oil and gas production in the United States has risen every year since the president's been in office. Oil production is now higher than it's been in eight years."

Industry analysts say production is rising -- not because of President Obama, but in spite of him.

"Today on federal land, the area where the president has control, production in the Gulf of Mexico is down 30 percent. Lease sales in Rocky Mountains on federal lands are down 70 percent," Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute said.

Nevertheless, steadily rising gas prices are a political liability. That's why the president now takes credit for the results of policies he ran against in 2008.
One ad lambasted McCain by tying him to the Bush energy policies, saying "McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years."

The president initially wanted to drive up oil prices to make renewable energy more attractive.

Seems like he succeeded

Some one needs to watch Gasland

Woodchip,
My difference with you on the price thing was the WHY part. Releasing new leases means you MIGHT see production 10 years down the road, but isn't going to affect the spot market. The cause of the drop in the spot market, as I pointed out, was lack of speculative drivers. Interestingly, those of you who are upset at the speculation bumping up the petroleum commodities have to accept it as part of the current economic model, which highly values short-term financial gains. Futures contracts, hedges and the like are far more popular with low cap gains taxation. Job creation? Hardly, in fact, this is a prime example where 'investment' can choke the economy. Just wait, foodstuffs will be picking up steam steadily in the commodoties speculation marketplace, and then see how much folks are affected. Petroleum and food are both items that are not avoidable purchases for long. As Obama keeps trying to point out, we can put a massive national effort into using far less oil and gas, but food?

Cuda,
If you will recall, during the Obama administration, there was a little production mishap in the Gulf, hence the figures are down, as noted.

On the subject of Fracking--
Woodchip was right to note the current status quo, ie: there are NO PROVEN cases of fracking affecting drinking water. However, TG's suspicions are quite valid, because there is very little research complete, yet we are actively fracking the heck out of the state of PA, which we might well live to regret.

I haven't heard much more about it either way, but I know that there were a few homes in this general area that reportedly had traces of the fluid used in the fracking process showing up in their well water. I'll have to dig around and see if I can turn up more info.

callmeslick wrote:Cuda,
If you will recall, during the Obama administration, there was a little production mishap in the Gulf, hence the figures are down, as noted.

Granted. but that still doesn't address WHO is to get the credit for oil production being up. it was policies under Bush that allowed oil production to be at current levels, and if it wasn't for the Gulf incident they would be even higher. I'm not disagreeing with Obama's decision to temporarily stop drilling for environmental and safety reasons. but his administration does not deserve the credit for production being up.

Heretic wrote:Some one needs to watch Gasland

X2

As usual, when the topic morphs to energy supplies, prices and oil companies, many on this board resorts to their own quiver of arrows, which still end up missing the mark.

Try these out, from the helpful R-Squared blog -

Why Bill O'Reilly's Gasoline Price Solution Won't Work

President Obama's Role in Current Gasoline Prices

Read some of the comments too, where Rapier and others will help to shoot down what might be some of your own conspiracy theories-du-jour.

Oh, and this isn't just a Republican bashing thing, because Obama doesn't get to take credit for increasing oil production either.

If President Obama is not responsible for current gas prices because of the lag time it takes for policies to have an impact and for projects to get implemented, then he is also not responsible for the current uptick in domestic oil and natural gas production. So you can’t have it both ways: If you want to give him credit for higher oil production, you can’t then dodge blame for higher gas prices. Either he owns both or he owns neither. And in fact, he owns neither.

So what then is the president’s role as far as gas prices or oil production? At best we can say that the policies a president puts in place today can make some impact on the markets in a few years. So five years from now we may be lamenting or praising President Obama’s energy policy decisions. We can of course speculate on how they may turn out. His policies may ultimately hurt supplies and raise prices, but they have no bearing on today’s gas prices. In reality, due to the increasing importance of consumers in developing countries, even long-term there isn’t a lot that a U.S. president is going to be able to do to impact prices. Obama could put policies in place that increase supplies, but that won’t necessarily result in cheap gasoline.

See also this. Seems that the rising domestic production has been due to private company operations, not government efforts

The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.
“A lot of the wells that were supposed to be drilled weren’t because of the moratorium,” Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the IER, told CNSNews.com. “Drilling is up in the U.S. on lands he has no say over. On lands he has all the say over, drilling is down.” …

oh, and if you agree with Sen. Markey et.al. that we ought to run out and tap the Strategic Petroleum Resrve right away to solve our gas price problems, you might want to read over some of the links at Rapier's Consumer Energy Report blog linked here.

Answer me this dissent. Why do gas prices always seem to rise here right before summer, year after year, even though gas consumption has been declining in the U.S. recently? Since oil is a global commodity, why isn't it rising slowly all year around if China and other nations are starting to use more?

I'll play devil's advocate this time. Aside from the obvious friggin manipulation, more demand=equals higher prices. People vacation in the summer, a good portion have the whole summer off, so the increased demand cause the prices to go higher. Now giving no railing accusation, they do seem to speculate too far in advance .

You notice how they ratchet up the prices like crazy, then slowly lower them over time, letting us think we're getting a breather, but you notice that they NEVER return to pre-screw-us-over levels, ever again.

Nope. I remember back in the 70's when I was kid. A dollar a gallon seemed right to me. Lol, apparently there was a gas war going on I wasn't aware of. I do remember distinctly that gas was $1.70 a gallon before the "crisis". It has never went below 3 dollars a gallon since.

Mere coincidence this just showed on facebook tonight.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

tunnelcat wrote:Answer me this dissent. Why do gas prices always seem to rise here right before summer, year after year, even though gas consumption has been declining in the U.S. recently? Since oil is a global commodity, why isn't it rising slowly all year around if China and other nations are starting to use more?

because there are still seasonal variations in the gasoline that is made by refiners, primarily due to environmental regulations
Why do gas prices rise in summer

Why summer gasoline means higher prices

The witch hunt begins ...

because there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between oil and gas prices because the oil and gasoline markets are not exactly the same, they have different supply and demand inputs and outputs

because refinery yields for gasoline vary with the crude that is being refined

because government monetary policy affects the value of the dollar and the values of contracts traded in dollars

because Asian demand goes up and down over time just like the ROW (rest of the world) demand goes up and down with time

etc., etc., etc.

Sorry to say that I don't think I can make this simple for you. I'll leave you with Robert's conclusion from the last link above,

Robert Rapier wrote:It seems that this political merry-go-round of investigations is part of the very fabric of our lives. Gas prices go up, and politicians start looking for scapegoats. It can’t possibly be the policies they have passed, nor can it be the world’s insatiable demand for oil. Someone, somewhere must be pulling the strings and taking advantage of people.

There are many factors behind the increase in gas prices, and one of them is in fact speculation. But we place far too much emphasis on this speculation bogeyman. Speculation goes on in all commodity and stock markets. Corn prices are up partially because of speculation. The price of metal is driven up by speculators. All of these things impact consumers. But speculation works in both directions, which is why oil fell so sharply from $147 in mid-2008 to the $30′s by the end of 2008 (and why stock price bubbles lead to stock price crashes).

The single-biggest factor behind the price rise, though, is simply growing demand for oil. Donald Trump can pontificate about there being so much oil that they don’t know where to dump it, but he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. There is very little spare capacity in the world, and demand is growing. A more productive investigation would be to figure out how to increase supplies and curb demand. But that of course would require a bit more effort on the part of our political leaders.

tunnelcat wrote:

I really hope I'm wrong and Americans will look past the rising gas prices as the "It's all Obama's fault and we need to kick him out of office for just that one stupid reason".

Going to be tough looking past gas prices as Obama fault when:

"President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices."

"Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy. "

Kinda sad to see your govt embrace a "bring them (you and I) to their knees" philosophy to promote their failing (and bankrupt) Solyndra policies.

He's exactly right in principle though, if not in delivery. We need to ditch oil as a widespread energy source at some point down the line, and if we get into this mentality of, "Oh, when the price goes down again, we'll stop worrying about it and enjoy our cheap gas," there won't be nearly as much incentive do to so. As annoying as high gas prices are, the side effect of them getting people to reconsider driving anywhere and seek more fuel-efficient vehicles is a decidedly positive one. I think people are starting to come around to the real possibility that these sorts of prices are here to stay, which necessitates some systemic changes.