Cheney Blames Democrats for Gas Prices

Oil hit another high today at over $44/barrel. High gasoline prices, whether driven by the market or taxed by the govt will have the same long-term affect of defining our energy policy for the future.

To that end, alternate energy will become more and more cost effective and become viable choices instead of oil. The consumer will force the country to make better energy choices.

 

The consumer can't choose wisely if the costs of these things are being wildly distorted by forces that most people don't grasp. For instance, the $87 billion blown in Iraq should be added to the total "national energy costs" but won't be in most people's minds.

Also, Dick Cheney is a douchebag.

 

> The Bush-Cheney campaign accuses...

I blame them for not supporting hybrids.

For 4 years we've been trying to get them to provide an endorse. But nothing resulted. The deduction is being allowed to expire. The credit was never approved. And all the money ear-marked for emissions & consumption efforts was given for fuel-cell development, not hybrids... which is rather dumb, since HSD is a natural step toward all-electric propulsion fuel-cells rely on.

Anywho, I'm not happy.

 

My question is...

Ok, oil prices are climbing, but gas prices here haven't jumped at all.

As a matter of fact...

When a few months ago oil prices hit $40/barrel, that put us here in DC around 2.16 per gallon. Right now, with oil at $44 a barrel and still increasing because OPEC said they are at their maximum, we're at 1.87/gallon. What gives, and when should I expect the 50 cent or more increase?

-m.

 

There price of a barrel of crude is only part of the "equation" used in calculating the price of gasoline. A major factor is "what the market will bear". I recall a number of years back when the Exxon Valdez ran aground, the very next day the price of gas a the corner stations jumped up.

But back to our beloved VP's alluding to an energy bill that allowed arctic drilling having an affected on today's gas prices. Huh? As I understand it (and somebody please correct me if I'm off base here), if you started today, you wouldn't even see production out of an untapped oil field for at least five years. My fear is that the voting public is stupid enough to buy into these assertions.

So why do Bush/Cheney want to drill in the arctic? Well let's see... who will most definitely be out of the White House in five years and probably back in the oil industry? Hmmmm.

 

Add to that, if Bush/Cheney REALLY wanted an energy policy that encouraged conservation, they could have pulled the Arctic drilling part out and the rest would have passed. They could try to get the Artic drilling plan approved at a later time. But, of course, anyone who wasn't willing to go for the whole thing (you are either with us or agin us) is the cause of the country not moving forward with a more earth friendly energy policy.

 

'"Anybody that might disagree with their liberal philosophy doesn't get to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote, and that's just wrong," he told a hand-picked audience of supporters in response to audience questions.'

There he goes again, lying to the choir.

I highly recommend Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" (now out in an expanded paperback edition) for more details and example.

 

The cost per barrel of oil is partially inflated now by speculation over potential supply disruptions (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Finland, Venezuela). Terrorism and potential or ongoing strikes seem to have been priced in right now.

As Jon Stewart put it, the Republicans control the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and have the closest relationship with the energy industry in all of American history... and STILL couldn't pass an energy plan? Because of Kerry and Edwards? MY question becomes: how come Jon freakin Stewart is the only "newsman" to call Cheney on this outrageous allegation?

 

John, with all due respect, what's the point of incentives to purchase a car that is in such demand that there's a six month to a year backlog in production? If the government bought them and gave them away free, it would not put one single additional Prius on the road. It would make more sense to put money into public transit, which really needs subsidies, or into marginal technologies that need a jump-start so that economies of scale can then make them economically viable. The Prius is a mature technology that is so successful it needs no subsidies.