I heard on the radio that the cost of a regular gallon of gas just hit a new record high of $3.79 a gallon. Of course, living in California $3.79 would be a bargain, as we have been paying over $4.00 for the better part of a month now.
A lot of people like to remind us that when George W. Bush took office, gas was $1.30 a gallon. That means in seven years and four months, the cosy of a gallon of gas has almost tripled. Wow. And of course, the link we are suppose to make is that GWB is responsible for that increase, and I don't necessarily disagree with this thinking. I mean think about it, we went to war against a country in a region where we get the majority of our oil, and gas prices go up. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection.
But here's the part of that equation they always seem to leave out: When George Bush took office as President in January of 2001, the price of gas was $1.30 a gallon. Six years later, in January of 2007, the price of gas was $2.19 per gallon, and increase of 89 cents over 72 months, or put another way, during the first six years of George Bush's presidency gas rose at an average of 1.236 cents every month.
In the last 16 months, the average price of gas has gone from $2.19 to $3.79 a gallon. That is an increase of $1.60 in 16 months, or put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, gas has increased an average of 10 cents per month, OR put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, the price of gas has increased an average more than EIGHT TIMES as fast as it did before we had Democrat control.
Coincidence? Not likely. Wait until they get control of the House, Senate and the White House. If I were you, I'd start buying oil company stocks right now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think it is a general failure (on both Dem & Repub parts) to have a long-term, coherent plan for an alternative energy source. People may want to look back to January 2001 and the cheap gas...but even that memory is far too short.
Let's go back to 1973, and the first oil crisis. Oil went through the roof, and the US government did, essentially, nothing. If we would have tacked on a 50 cent per gallon tax then and there, and used that money solely for research into clean and alternative energy sources...well, we'd be 35+ years into the research by now. Ask most scientists now and they say we need 30 years of R&D before we could have a cheap source of clean energy, such as hydrogen. If we would have started in 1973, when the problem first surfaced, we would already be there.
I think (and hope) that the oil bubble will soon burst (maybe back down to $100 a barrel, but certainly not $50), but unfortunately, I think that will only help people forget once again. We seem to be satiated with the here and now, and if we aren't paying $4 or $5 a gallon, we're not worried about tomorrow.
As for "buying oil company stocks right now," that will only add to the problem of market speculation that has driven the price up to $130+ a barrel.
Thanks for stopping by Wil. You know, I agree with just about everything that you've said, and this is not a left or right issue. Nixon promised energy independence, as did Carter, and where are we today? No where closer, and not likely to be soon.
While I agree that we need to explore and develop alternative fuel sources, we also need to utilize the reserves that we have. We refuse to drill of the coast of Florida, but China - working with Cuba - has no problem. Again, this is not the long-term solution, but tapping our own reserves and building new refineries does help buy us time.
I wish I had the answer, but it's not that easy, although too many people think it is. Just saying "We need to develop alternative fuels" doesn't make it reality. Out here in California we have a group that is trying to build a huge solar farm (between 60 abd 200 acres)about an hour from my home, but they're running into huge oposition. From big oil? No, from - of all people - the Sierra Club. Why? They're afraid it will "confuse" the prairie dogs. And these are the guys that are suppose to be supporting alternative energy.
I'm a California native, originally from Sacramento - and I seem to remember some incident about shutting down the windmills in the Altamont pass a few years ago because they were killing birds who flew into them. Similar situation I guess.
If a bird is stupid enough to fly into a windmill, isn't that just survival of the fittest? You don't hear anyone removing their windows from their house cause a few stupid birds flew into those...
I think the alternative energy source is the long-term plan - tapping the few places we have left now could be a short-term solution to keep oil from hitting $200 a barrel. But eventually (2 or 3 decades) we need something clean, renewable, and cheap.
I agree Wil that drilling for oil in America (or off the coast) is not a long term solution, but given the fact that a quality alternative source is not on the horizon, we need to go after that oil to keep things under control.
While we have not become energy independent (or anywhere near it)since Nixon and Carter first suggested we must in the 70's, we HAVE made a lot of progress, and I am confident that we will prevail. But we need to focus on both short term AND long term needs.
ANWAR should have been drilled in a LONG time ago...
As for who is to blame... Well, the President doens't act alone and all those lobbiests toss around lots of money. We the people are at the mercy of those with loud voices and money...
Democrats’ Empty Rhetoric on Oil Prices.
1. OPEC should pump more oil.
Only more oil supply from OPEC (not from the US…) can bring down prices…
2. Drilling for oil in the US will not have an impact on oil prices.
Drilling for oil in ANWR, Off Shore, Oil Shale and Oil Sands will add millions of barrels daily to the oil market.
3. Stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Daily DOE purchases of just 76,000 barrels will not have an impact on oil prices. President Bush was right on the button on this argument. This move had no impact on the oil market since it was announced in May.
4. Only (expensive) alternative energy can bring down oil prices.
If the rule of supply and demand doesn’t apply to oil prices and increasing supply won’t shift the lower prices, why would a decrease in oil demand help.
5. “Big Oil” already leases millions of acres, but they don’t drill to keep prices high.
Didn’t you just argue that drilling won’t bring prices down?
(To get a brief explanation on this issue click here, here and here.)
6. The Oil Companies are pushing for new drilling to make more profit.
This contradicts your previous argument, Stupid.
7. End Oil Speculating.
As if Speculators only trade one way. If it’s for empty speculation, why doesn’t the DJIA go up to 35,000 points? (For a “Liberal” dispute of this argument click here)
8. Tax the Oil Companies.
How will this affect the price of oil?
9. The current price of oil is a result of Bush’s failed energy policies.
The price of Crude was at approximately $65-$70 when the Democrats took control of congress. It’s currently at $137, a 100% increase. The price of Gasoline was at approximately $2.33 when the Democrats took control of congress. It’s currently at $4.10, a 76% increase.
If it wasn’t for the Democrats resistance to increasing oil production for the last 13 years, we would have been busy debating other issues at this time.
http://welovebush.blogspot.com/2008/06/democrats-empty-rhetoric-on-oil-prices.html
Post a Comment