• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$7-a-gallon gas?

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Can we afford this? This will drive up the cost of everything with transportation costs. Shipping costs will go through the roof.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK

President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.

So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?

Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.

The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.

Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.

That sure was true of global-warming policy, and especially the cap-and-trade bill. Many observers thought the measure, introduced last year in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), was dead: The American people didn't seem to think that the so-called global-warming crisis justified a price-hiking, job-killing, economy-crushing redesign of our energy supply amid a fragile recovery. Passing another major piece of legislation, one every bit as unpopular as ObamaCare, appeared unlikely in an election year.

So Obama and congressional proponents of cap-and-trade spent several months rebranding it -- downplaying the global-warming rationale and claiming that it was really a jobs bill (the so-called green jobs were supposed to spring from the new clean-energy economy) and an energy-independence bill (that will somehow stick it to OPEC).

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) even reportedly declined to introduce their new cap-and-trade proposal in the Senate on Earth Day, because they wanted to de-emphasize the global-warming message. Instead, Kerry called the American Power Act "a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence."

But the new marketing strategy wasn't working. Few believe the green-jobs hype -- with good reason. In Spain, for example, green jobs have been an expensive bust, with each position created requiring, on average, $774,000 in government subsidies. And the logic of getting us off oil imports via a unilateral measure that punishes American coal, oil and natural gas never made any sense at all.

Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade -- again -- as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less.

The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector.

Of course, doing so would reduce gasoline use and also raise market share for hugely expensive alternative fuels and vehicles that could never compete otherwise. Less gasoline demand means less need for drilling and thus a slightly reduced chance of a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill -- but only slightly. Oil will still be a vital part of America's energy mix.

Oil-spill risks should be addressed directly -- such as finding out why the leak occurred and requiring new preventive measures or preparing an improved cleanup plan for the next incident. Cap-and-trade is no fix and would cause trillions of dollars in collateral economic damage along the way.
 
Last edited:

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Domestic economy would be crippled, and he would be expelled from office via a pitchfork-wielding mob.

Low fuel costs have far too many spillover benefits. Over doubling fuel prices would have a domino effect that would destroy the country from the inside out.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh hey, it's this story again. I know, the date says today, but this exact same story was going around many months ago. All they did today was rewrite it slightly to include stuff about the oil spill. Stupid.

Ok, here's where it gets things wrong:

1) Obama never proposed an increase in gas prices to $7/gallon. This is a Harvard study, not an Obama administration study.
2) The study seems to assume that the only variable you change is the price of gas. Of course, I can't be sure because the NYpost fails to link to that study.
 

scooby-doo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Americans will just have to get used to higher gas prices,they have been used to very low prices for decades,those days are coming to an end.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah, I don't feel like "getting used to" a loaf of bread costing 4 bucks.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Oh hey, it's this story again. I know, the date says today, but this exact same story was going around many months ago. All they did today was rewrite it slightly to include stuff about the oil spill. Stupid.

Ok, here's where it gets things wrong:

1) Obama never proposed an increase in gas prices to $7/gallon. This is a Harvard study, not an Obama administration study.
2) The study seems to assume that the only variable you change is the price of gas. Of course, I can't be sure because the NYpost fails to link to that study.
So what does Obama say will happen. He said in his oil spill address we need this type of law. It will devastate those already hurting by the recession and unemployment. Obama would be better off addressing jobs and the economy
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Americans will just have to get used to higher gas prices,they have been used to very low prices for decades,those days are coming to an end.
There is no reason for that. Taxes will not do nothing more than hurt the already cash strapped middle class and poor
 

Z3n

I invented Human Nature
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
287
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not to bash the source but the NYP is a murdoch affiliate. His criticism of alternative energy jobs is nothing new. Also see: FOX News, Wall Street Journal. Is it Murdoch's opinion on gas and green jobs, or your own well researched one?
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not to bash the source but the NYP is a murdoch affiliate. His criticism of alternative energy jobs is nothing new. Also see: FOX News, Wall Street Journal. Is it Murdoch's opinion on gas and green jobs, or your own well researched one?
I did not see where Murdoch wrote this. This is about cap and tax not about jobs. More taxes and now in the name of the oil spill. If you believe this money will in anyway be used for that I will sell you prime land in the everglades
 

Z3n

I invented Human Nature
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
287
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

Second sentence after the subheading "Moving into the United States"

Also I was referring to the Kerry paragraph where he talks about the bill and jobs. Sorry for the confusion
 
Last edited:

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second sentence after the subheading "Moving into the United States"

Also I was referring to the Kerry paragraph where he talks about the bill and jobs. Sorry for the confusion
So Murdock personally approves every word of every article in all his media holdings? This article is more about Obama using the oil spill to push more environmental taxes on us. This will raise the cost of everything. If you buy it a truck delivered it and you are paying for the transportation costs. Fuel doubling will greatly increase the cost of everything
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Attack the messenger FAIL
Mesenger matters. They are not all created equal. Someone addressed this story quite well earlier:

Deuce said:
Oh hey, it's this story again. I know, the date says today, but this exact same story was going around many months ago. All they did today was rewrite it slightly to include stuff about the oil spill. Stupid.

Ok, here's where it gets things wrong:

1) Obama never proposed an increase in gas prices to $7/gallon. This is a Harvard study, not an Obama administration study.
2) The study seems to assume that the only variable you change is the price of gas. Of course, I can't be sure because the NYpost fails to link to that study.
If this person is correct, the source may well be questionable.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So Murdock personally approves every word of every article in all his media holdings? This article is more about Obama using the oil spill to push more environmental taxes on us. This will raise the cost of everything. If you buy it a truck delivered it and you are paying for the transportation costs. Fuel doubling will greatly increase the cost of everything
Can you prove the gas price will go up to $7/gallon?
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mesenger matters. They are not all created equal. Someone addressed this story quite well earlier:



If this person is correct, the source may well be questionable.

Wrong this article shows how Obama is pushing cap and tax using the oil spill as an excuse
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Can you prove the gas price will go up to $7/gallon?
Whats to prove Obama will tax oil that will be passed on to us so yes oil and gas will go up. This will effect all prices including electricity. Will it be $7 I don't know but it will be a substantial increase. Why is it the democrats are not projecting how much it will increase? Notice Kerry and Lieberman have been quiet on this this week
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So Obama is NOT bedfellows with oil corporations?

Is that the new rightist diagnosis?
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wrong this article shows how Obama is pushing cap and tax using the oil spill as an excuse
So, he wasn't for cap and trade before? Again, address Deuce.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,778
Reaction score
7,659
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wanna bet they will sell it with a...

Europe is paying 1.45 Euro per liter at the moment.
5.90 Euro per gallon... $7.30 by today's exchange.

Odd they picked 7.00 as a number?
Not really.
They're a bunch of Euro wannabe's.

BTW... 75% of the price is... Taxes.

Americans will just have to get used to higher gas prices,they have been used to very low prices for decades,those days are coming to an end.
No,no, no we don't.
Drill baby drill... where it makes most sense... and drill tons... so we drive prices down and keep them down.

We have tons of oil in areas that are easier to access than where the government has pushed the companies.

Let's get it.... first we have to eject the enviromaniac pandering nut jobs running Congress.

.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wanna bet they will sell it with a...

Europe is paying 1.45 Euro per liter at the moment.
5.90 Euro per gallon... $7.30 by today's exchange.

Odd they picked 7.00 as a number?
Not really.
They're a bunch of Euro wannabe's.

BTW... 75% of the price is... Taxes.


No,no, no we don't.
Drill baby drill... where it makes most sense... and drill tons... so we drive prices down and keep them down.

We have tons of oil in areas that are easier to access than where the government has pushed the companies.

Let's get it.... first we have to eject the enviromaniac pandering nut jobs running Congress.

.
You don't seem to understand the scale we're talking about. It's pretty much impossible at this point for more drilling to keep up with the global increase in oil consumption. You're also ignoring the little issue of this stuff not being unlimited.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is exactly what Obama wants. Surely, no one really thought he was trying to help the country?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is exactly what Obama wants. Surely, no one really thought he was trying to help the country?
A sign of true partisanship is when you are convinced the other side is actively trying to hurt the country. I think the GOP and conservatives are wrong on most issues, but I never once thought that they were evil people bent on hurting America.

Maybe, just maybe, some people on the "environmentalist" side are thinking about the long-term. About what will happen to America if we don't prepare ourselves for the inevitable global changeover from fossil fuels.

China, India, most of Europe, they're all pushing themselves towards other fuel sources. When global supply starts to peter out, they'll be ready. They've been preparing for decades already, meanwhole we're still building Hummers. What do you think is going to happen to this country when it's the last one to make the switch?

We need an economic incentive for our private industry to figure this out. Like, yesterday. Currently, fossil fuel use is rising exponentially. They have a head start. Do you want it to stay that way?
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are really high aren't you? WHat makes you think China, India and Europe are doing anything to push toward other fuel sources? Not when China is starting 2 new coal mines a month. They are all huge oil consumers. You are living in a fantasyland.
China is investing pretty heavily in solar power, producing 30% of the world's solar panels, and already has about 17% of its electricity coming from renewable sources.. Europe already has high gas prices, they already have a strong incentive to switch. 35% of India's new energy sources are solar or wind and they plan to institute a cap-and-trade style tax. China and India aren't stupid, they know their industrialization is not at all sustainable with just fossil fuels.

They're huge oil consumers, but not like we are. And they know that has to change. Have we accepted that?
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
China is investing pretty heavily in solar power, producing 30% of the world's solar panels, and already has about 17% of its electricity coming from renewable sources.. Europe already has high gas prices, they already have a strong incentive to switch. 35% of India's new energy sources are solar or wind and they plan to institute a cap-and-trade style tax. China and India aren't stupid, they know their industrialization is not at all sustainable with just fossil fuels.

They're huge oil consumers, but not like we are. And they know that has to change. Have we accepted that?
I think you are full of ****. You got evidence for those numbers?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,235
Reaction score
32,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Last edited:
Top Bottom