Why Gas Prices Are Out of Any President’s Control

lionshead2010 wrote: I honestly don't have a problem with the Administration making reasonable efforts to reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels. What I do have a problem with is the idea that the BEST way to make alternate forms of energy affordable and viable is by raising taxes on gas and diesel.

The people these taxes hurt the most are the people who can least afford to spend the extra money because they are already having a hard time making ends meet and they need the fuel to do or get to their work.

Where's the compassion?

Where is the truth? President Obama has not proposed to raise taxes on gas and diesel, and in fact has stated that he is against raising those taxes.

[youtube:26w170vn][/youtube:26w170vn]
In fact, the only recent politician that has raised the taxes at the pump is Mitt Romney, leader of the Republican party.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

OmniScience wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Republicans only want reliance on oil related energy, thus requiring participation in the global market.

What a complete crock.

That's like saying the Democrats only want inefficient 'green' energy sources that require massive government subsidies and end in failed initiatives (Solyndra).

So what iniatives have the Republicans offered to lower dependence on oil-related energy? Other than government subsidies in the billions for the oil companies that are reaping record profits?

Republicans love nuclear as an alternative energy source. And they also like coal and natural gas fired power plants as an alternative.

Then why don't they show the love, instead of opposing efforts to utilize natural gas which is in great supply?

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... -prospects

Something the Dog Said wrote: Then why don't they show the love, instead of opposing efforts to utilize natural gas which is in great supply?

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... -prospects

There is a difference between supporting something and handing out more tax credits when we have record debt.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Then why don't they show the love, instead of opposing efforts to utilize natural gas which is in great supply?

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... -prospects

There is a difference between supporting something and handing out more tax credits when we have record debt.

Then why are we subsidizing the oil companies with billions of dollars in tax breaks? Particularly when they are making record profits?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course the President could also propose incentives to increase non-oil energy consumption and production to reduce the reliance on global oil markets. Oh wait, he did, but the Republicans blocked those initiatives. He could propose regs that would decrease the consumption of oil, but wait, he did, but the Republicans blocked those regs. The Republicans only want reliance on oil related energy, thus requiring participation in the global market.

And what do you propose is a self-sustaining alternative? Self-sustaining includes economic viability. And before you answer, just as a reference, I worked in a alternative energy research facility for 15 years, so I have some idea of the state of renewable technologies. And I would be the first to say that renewables have a future in this country, a future in the world, but were are not there yet.

And we can't just spend our way to self-sustainability in renewables. It seems that some people think that renewables are a magic bullet, poised and ready to defeat big bad oil. Well it's not. A quick review of the last year, and the failed ventures in private renewable industries, artificially propped up with stimulus money courtesy of the DOE, should be a wake up call for the greens who barrel ahead with no understanding of the state of the technology.

So... what is your solution?

That's exactly right. It would be like the government expecting everybody to own a computer back in the 80s....even 20% of the population would have been unlikely. I have no doubt we'll get there some day, but forcing it will only drive this country further into debt and the poor will get much poorer. Now that I think about it, maybe that's the idea.

Without incentives, it is difficult for new technologies to emerge, particularly those necessary for the public interest. For example, it required huge funding by the government for the Internet to become viable. Further, look at how many billions and billions in taxpayer subsidies have the oil companies received. How many billions were spent through the space race and military applications for the computer industry to emerge?

I'm still waiting for Colorado Natural Gas to lower their prices, since there is such a glut on the market.

It'll never happen. They sold us a bill of goods when they first came up here and now have us over a barrel.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Then why don't they show the love, instead of opposing efforts to utilize natural gas which is in great supply?

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... -prospects

There is a difference between supporting something and handing out more tax credits when we have record debt.

Then why are we subsidizing the oil companies with billions of dollars in tax breaks? Particularly when they are making record profits?

They are making record profits only in the amount of money. As a percentage of income there are many more industries that are doing better like Apple but the Left never bitches about them.