Obama has ruined our economy...

[Phatscotty]

I didn't say anything about Obama (to you, Player brought it up).

No, you blamed Obama for high gas prices. I said that oil prices have been kept low artificially and should rise, that he is not limiting natural gas drilling. The arctic drilling for oil predates Obama a good deal, he just hasn't changed the policy (at least yet...)

I pointed out Obama has not done anything to make gas prices more affordable. That is the truth. Gas prices are and have been more expensive than ever, and they have been that expensive for quite a while now.

[PLAYER57832]

I didn't say anything about Obama (to you, Player brought it up).

No, you blamed Obama for high gas prices. I said that oil prices have been kept low artificially and should rise, that he is not limiting natural gas drilling. The arctic drilling for oil predates Obama a good deal, he just hasn't changed the policy (at least yet...)

I pointed out Obama has not done anything to make gas prices more affordable. That is the truth. Gas prices are and have been more expensive than ever, and they have been that expensive for quite a while now.

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

The fact is that oil prices have been kept artificially low, historically. It offers short term economic benefits, but winds up costing us heavily in the long run. The "piper must be paid".

You can decry the loss of low priced oil, or you can decry the damage allowing our economy to be solely dependent on such a limited resource and negating most viable options. I prefer to look to the future. Allowing gas prices to rise is painful.. VERY painful, but it is the only way to provide long term success. The real solution will be in finding other alternatives, not ruining the arctic. (and I specifically did not just say "arctic refuge", because its transport, not the drilling itself, that is most likely to cause damage.. though drilling in the arctic is very hazardous).

[Night Strike]

I didn't say anything about Obama (to you, Player brought it up).

No, you blamed Obama for high gas prices. I said that oil prices have been kept low artificially and should rise, that he is not limiting natural gas drilling. The arctic drilling for oil predates Obama a good deal, he just hasn't changed the policy (at least yet...)

Energy prices have to necessarily skyrocket huh? How's that working out for the economy?

[Lootifer]

I didn't say anything about Obama (to you, Player brought it up).

No, you blamed Obama for high gas prices. I said that oil prices have been kept low artificially and should rise, that he is not limiting natural gas drilling. The arctic drilling for oil predates Obama a good deal, he just hasn't changed the policy (at least yet...)

Energy prices have to necessarily skyrocket huh? How's that working out for the economy?

Interestingly we have what you would call insane gas prices in NZ and we survive. The economy would just adjust (might suffer short term).

[BigBallinStalin]

I didn't say anything about Obama (to you, Player brought it up).

No, you blamed Obama for high gas prices. I said that oil prices have been kept low artificially and should rise, that he is not limiting natural gas drilling. The arctic drilling for oil predates Obama a good deal, he just hasn't changed the policy (at least yet...)

Energy prices have to necessarily skyrocket huh? How's that working out for the economy?

Interestingly we have what you would call insane gas prices in NZ and we survive. The economy would just adjust (might suffer short term).

Sure, but you now have less income to spend on all other goods.

[Lootifer]

Or adjust to spend the same amount on "transport energy" on substitutes?

[Phatscotty]

I didn't say anything about Obama (to you, Player brought it up).

No, you blamed Obama for high gas prices. I said that oil prices have been kept low artificially and should rise, that he is not limiting natural gas drilling. The arctic drilling for oil predates Obama a good deal, he just hasn't changed the policy (at least yet...)

I pointed out Obama has not done anything to make gas prices more affordable. That is the truth. Gas prices are and have been more expensive than ever, and they have been that expensive for quite a while now.

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job --

Please...I gotta stop ya right there. That's absolutely ridiculous. You know I don't assume that.

One thing you are making me assume as to where you are going with this, is that you assume the president has absolutely no power when it comes to gas prices.

[rishaed]

But it on the other had stimulates the growth of public transportation/carpooling since with higher gas prices that means less traveling by car which means if you want to get to florida then you will find a way to get public transportation.

[Phatscotty]

But it on the other had stimulates the growth of public transportation/carpooling since with higher gas prices that means less traveling by car which means if you want to get to florida then you will find a way to get public transportation.

But, what's the impact on the economy? Certainly, for one, the federal government is not getting near the federal gas taxes on every gallon of gas?? Not to mention, public transportation costs run in the billions but don't really return any profits.

[rishaed]

Overall if the government is halfway decently ruled, you will find the answer in places like Germany/ parts of Europe. (Gas is roughly between $8-10 per gallon w/ conversions). Money that we spend on gas could be rerouted elsewhere like better infrastructure. I'm not saying to get rid of the car or that we have to go as far as Germany, but we have some of the lowest taxes in the world, but expect to recieve the most in various things. Either cut entitlement programs (consolidating budgets) without making new ones, or increase taxes. The cycle of more entitlement and less taxes cannot work economically.

[Night Strike]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

[Phatscotty]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

[Lootifer]

But it on the other had stimulates the growth of public transportation/carpooling since with higher gas prices that means less traveling by car which means if you want to get to florida then you will find a way to get public transportation.

But, what's the impact on the economy? Certainly, for one, the federal government is not getting near the federal gas taxes on every gallon of gas?? Not to mention, public transportation costs run in the billions but don't really return any profits.

I assume by profits you mean value; which is quite clearly false. Just because public or mass transport systems are often run in a not-for-profit manner it doesnt mean they dont provide an immense amount of value for the local economy.

[Phatscotty]

But it on the other had stimulates the growth of public transportation/carpooling since with higher gas prices that means less traveling by car which means if you want to get to florida then you will find a way to get public transportation.

But, what's the impact on the economy? Certainly, for one, the federal government is not getting near the federal gas taxes on every gallon of gas?? Not to mention, public transportation costs run in the billions but don't really return any profits.

I assume by profits you mean value; which is quite clearly false. Just because public or mass transport systems are often run in a not-for-profit manner it doesnt mean they dont provide an immense amount of value for the local economy.

No. by profits, I mean profits and the system can support itself and afford it's employees wages, health insurance, and other benefits, amongst other things. Of course mass trans has value. That's not what I said or meant at all

[BigBallinStalin]

Or adjust to spend the same amount on "transport energy" on substitutes?

Assuming exchanges within the political process are all positive-sum and just as costly yet efficient as the market, then sure. But wait a minute...

[BigBallinStalin]

But it on the other had stimulates the growth of public transportation/carpooling since with higher gas prices that means less traveling by car which means if you want to get to florida then you will find a way to get public transportation.

But, what's the impact on the economy? Certainly, for one, the federal government is not getting near the federal gas taxes on every gallon of gas?? Not to mention, public transportation costs run in the billions but don't really return any profits.

I assume by profits you mean value; which is quite clearly false. Just because public or mass transport systems are often run in a not-for-profit manner it doesnt mean they dont provide an immense amount of value for the local economy.

Does public transportation tend to market clearing prices, or do you see a lot of shortages and surpluses of such services? (overcapacity, or hardly anyone using them).

If so, then such inefficiency is wasteful, thereby diminishing value for an economy.

[Lootifer]

But it on the other had stimulates the growth of public transportation/carpooling since with higher gas prices that means less traveling by car which means if you want to get to florida then you will find a way to get public transportation.

But, what's the impact on the economy? Certainly, for one, the federal government is not getting near the federal gas taxes on every gallon of gas?? Not to mention, public transportation costs run in the billions but don't really return any profits.

I assume by profits you mean value; which is quite clearly false. Just because public or mass transport systems are often run in a not-for-profit manner it doesnt mean they dont provide an immense amount of value for the local economy.

No. by profits, I mean profits and the system can support itself and afford it's employees wages, health insurance, and other benefits, amongst other things. Of course mass trans has value. That's not what I said or meant at all

Its very difficult for the providers to capture the entire value of public transport because a lot of it is realised by the local businesses thats employees use the transport to get to work etc. Thats typically why it is centrally provided (by local government) is often run at a loss if you only consider the public transport itself and not the wider system.

Now BBS will quickly point out that this could be more efficiently handled in the market where local businesses set up a fund on their own accord or whatever, and the provisioning is done without central intervention; not something I disagree with, however the government as far as I am aware doesnt do toooo bad a job of it in many places so to me it's a secondary issue (the primary issue being getting public transport in there in the first place - we have first hand experience of the issues a city faces when it lacks adequate public transport infrastructure - See: Auckland, NZ).

@ BBS: Yes I get your point that shortages and surpluses plague centrally run public transport systems. But this is a problem faced by natural monopolies regardless of what their management is... incoming knowledge problem tirade... (I mean that in the nicest way possible ofc, and by all means go ahead, i enjoy the tirades )

[PLAYER57832]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

Because people don't LIKE high gas prices and think the president should just magically fix them? Doesn't mean they are correct.

Besides, Bush was hand in foot in the oil industry. Obama is not immune -- no US president is, but Bush and his family got their wealth from oil, gained power in the oil state of Texas. Telling is how little he did on the front of real alternatives.

[Phatscotty]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

Because people don't LIKE high gas prices and think the president should just magically fix them? Doesn't mean they are correct.

That's how you've missed my point from the start. One does not have to expect the president to magically fix gas prices in order to determine the president hasn't made any positive impacts on gas prices. Then, there might also be the opinion the current president has had a negative impact on gas prices; pipeline refusal, shutting down all gulf wells when the problem is 1 well, promising to bankrupt coal companies, helping the hinges fly off all over the Middle East, completely wasting 10's of billions of dollars on green companies that have also went bust, not to mention the 5 million jobs that were supposed to come with the "energy investment" which is also documented in the video above.

If we had the 5 million jobs from the green economy, I think we could all agree Obama's policies helped the economy and green dividends would be paying off. It's a shame that in the reality there are no 5 million jobs and energy are around record highs today with no dividends, that we can't all agree his policies did not come close to working and hurt the economy, or at least was neutral (did nothing + interest)

[thegreekdog]

The sequester has also ruined the economy.

[Night Strike]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

Because people don't LIKE high gas prices and think the president should just magically fix them? Doesn't mean they are correct.

Besides, Bush was hand in foot in the oil industry. Obama is not immune -- no US president is, but Bush and his family got their wealth from oil, gained power in the oil state of Texas. Telling is how little he did on the front of real alternatives.

Maybe because it's not the government's job to look for alternatives?

[AAFitz]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

Because people don't LIKE high gas prices and think the president should just magically fix them? Doesn't mean they are correct.

Besides, Bush was hand in foot in the oil industry. Obama is not immune -- no US president is, but Bush and his family got their wealth from oil, gained power in the oil state of Texas. Telling is how little he did on the front of real alternatives.

Maybe because it's not the government's job to look for alternatives?

Its not their job to discourage them either.....

Why do you make it so fucking easy EVERY time?

In any case, it very much could be exactly the job of the government to look for alternatives to products that endanger the lives of its people...some might say, its their ONLY job.

[thegreekdog]

No seriously, AAFitz - where's your sarcastic "the sequester has ruined our economy" thread? I thought that would come first, no? Are we being inconsistent here?

[PLAYER57832]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

Because people don't LIKE high gas prices and think the president should just magically fix them? Doesn't mean they are correct.

That's how you've missed my point from the start. One does not have to expect the president to magically fix gas prices in order to determine the president hasn't made any positive impacts on gas prices. Then, there might also be the opinion the current president has had a negative impact on gas prices; pipeline refusal, shutting down all gulf wells when the problem is 1 well, promising to bankrupt coal companies, helping the hinges fly off all over the Middle East, completely wasting 10's of billions of dollars on green companies that have also went bust, not to mention the 5 million jobs that were supposed to come with the "energy investment" which is also documented in the video above.

All of that is a "problem" ONLY if you are willing to pretend that there is no future. If you acknowledge that we humans might want to continue our existence into the future, then the current path is what's wrong.

If we had the 5 million jobs from the green economy, I think we could all agree Obama's policies helped the economy and green dividends would be paying off. It's a shame that in the reality there are no 5 million jobs and energy are around record highs today with no dividends, that we can't all agree his policies did not come close to working and hurt the economy, or at least was neutral (did nothing + interest)

To GET those green jobs means breaking the oil stronghold. You want the jobs first, that will only happen when the oil is actually gone.. unfortunately, by that time, much of the damage to the green economy --- OUR economy, because we all depend, ultimately, on growing things, breathing clean air and drinking clean water. will be irreparable.

Talking about money and profit as if it were primary and the environment as if it were secondary requires ignoring the world around and impacts. Sadly, that seems pretty common.