Oil tops $100; Reid blames Bush

And can anyone name what legislation Harry Reid's Democrat-controlled Congress passed that would bring down oil prices?

Reid and Pelosi are national jokes.

And can anyone name what legislation Harry Reid's Democrat-controlled Congress passed that would bring down oil prices?

Reid and Pelosi are national jokes.

Posted by: Bruce | January 2, 2008 5:58 PM

Energy Independance and Security Act of 2007.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00226

20 Republican Senators and President Bush don't seem to have thought it was much of a joke.

"“It is disappointing – but unfortunately not surprising – that oil prices hit $100 a barrel for the first time ever on the watch of the most oil-friendly administration in history,”

That would be success for these people. It makes drilling in all those sensitive places out west with marginal reserves on public lands economically feasible, in the short term.

This is GWBThink on steroids; Once the environment is destroyed there will be no need for environmentalism.

Sen.Reid its time to go out to pasture. We got a little rain the last few days in Georgia. I'm putting the blame squarely on President Bush. I figure we might as well give him credit for some of the good things that happen too.

As a conservative whom has voted for the republican candidate for president for thirty years I can say that the energy rape of the consumer has gone on long enough. I and many of my peers will be voting against ALL republican candidates for ALL offices in the upcoming elections and for the foreseeable future. The uncontrolled and parasitic thievery that threatens to destroy OUR way of life MUST end!

WCP.....

So, instead, you'll vote for all those Dems/Libs who rape the consumer in other ways like higher taxes....then, crank up the output of programs like welfare. Yeah, you're logic is sound...idiot! This polarized politicking is ridiculous. Both parties need to realize that the average 35k/yr family can't afford EITHER side's argument. We need greater supply while we -- at the SAME TIME -- figure out other alt technologies that we can ACTUALLY afford. Get off your highhorse!

I don't know why Reid and Pelosi are so upset. The price of oil isn't high enough. People still are showing no signs of decreasing their usage of petroleum. We've got to stop burning fossil fuels to combat global warming. And if you drive the price down, people will just continue to burn more of it. So if global warming is really the major threat to the world, then push the price of oil higher to fight the threat. Any position short of that is hypocritical.

You mean a rich oil dude, with an administration full of oil people would want high oil prices? Say it ain't so. I hear one of them (Condi) even has an oil tanker named after her.

How stupid is this Reid guy...It's called supply and demand you idiot! It's a global market!
Who elects these dopey dems?

Paulo

Brucie,Luke called bullsh** on your comment and provided two links to back up his argument.

Are you going to reply or just spend the rest of your evening dreaming about Barack!

And Brucie,if Reid and Pelossi are National jokes,where in the hell does that put Boy George?

C MO,your bang on when it comes to oil.Remember Cheney's secret energy meetings that only included Energy Co's.

Paul Jaegermeister,your from Georgia,so that pretty much explains your comments!!

Halliburton and Little Dick must be making a "killing" right now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63054028@N00/131229717/

After living through the gas shortage in the 70s...it makes me wonder why we are still at the mercy of OPEC...STAND UP AMERICA...the car companies should have solved this problem long ago. We have the brains...cure our addiction now...

Raving Loon:
Legislation will not bring down energy prices. And I am not sure how reducing oil companies profits will result in reduced energy prices, either. That most likey will result in INCREASED energy prices. One certain way to reduce consumption is to increase the price, though. So a national carbon tax of a significant amount will achieve that. If Sen Reid, Pelosi, etc were serious about reducing consumption, taht is a direct route to that end. Higher mpg on cars will make travelling MORE affordable, and most likely result in more energy consumption. Cars are more efficient today than they were 50 years ago, yet we consume more gas per capita. That's because gas is less expensive now than it was then. Another way to lower prices is to expand supply,which is what drilling in the arctic would do, at no significant environmental cost. So what do you want, lower prices (and more consumption) or less consumption? I feel we should be focusing on energy independence and cleanliness. 35mpg will do nothing but raise the price and lower the safety of cars.

Posted by: Bruce | January 2, 2008 5:58 PM

Brucie, can you point to ANY legislation passed by the Republican-dominated Congress from 1994 - 2006 that favored anything OTHER THAN more drilling, like better conservation of the oil that America uses every year?

I remember clueless conservatives where I used to work a few years back hoped the Iraq war would end soon so gas prices would go down. A few months later, two of them traded in their sedans for "Hummalades". While I found work where I can walk to & from everyday.

I guess they feel for those oil executives who had secret meetings with Cheny on "energy policies" (is there a way we can get more rich?). They must believe their multi-million dollar bonuses aren't enough.

Why are we dependent on OPEC, because we refuse to drill for more oil. Yes more oil will lwoer the price. It's called supply and demand.

Speaking of demand, is it Presdient Bush's fault that the economies of third-world China and India are expanding during their growth phases?

Isn't high oil prices what you libs want anyway since then consumers will use less of it and cure global warming? Or do you just want the high price of fuel to occur thru taxation; therefore, the gov't can waste more money?

Dingy Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi don't want us to drill for oil or build refineries. It would upset their kook environmental wacko base.
Dan Perino is right we need to drill there is more oil in the gulf, in Anwar in the West. The Chinese communists are drilling oil near the Florida coast while Democrat enviro loons like Al Gore talk about Mother Earth as though it is their god. The enviro movement is a religion that encourages abortion to stop population growth.
The Sierra Club is more dangerous than any predator trying to take America backwards instead of rising to the future for our children and grand children.
We need to argue with environmental wackos anywhere anytime instead of letting these weirdos change our economy. Since the failed policy of the 70's with long gas lines, gas stations closed on Sunday Jimma Carter said just put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat while the hospitality industry neared bankruptcy. Ronald Reagan ended this insanity.
Along came the teachers union and they have their Earth Day and other things to poison young minds instead of enligtening them.
When enviros tell us to conserve and don't drill we need to say let's look at the cost efficiency or what are the costs to a capitalistic society for not drilling or refining.
These people are not logical it's all emotion like every other feel good things liberals do.America stand up to these radicals ask them what price we are paying for deliberate inaction.
Liberal environmental groups don't care if they ruin our jobs or our economy to save a snail darter is more important.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Jerry, your absolutely right about the wacko environmentalists! Corporations should decide everything based on what's cheapest.

Incidentally, my corporation has decided the cheapest way to get rid of the toxic waste we're producing is to dump it into the water supply of Springfield Illinois. I'm sure you'll support us in this venture, and accept high levels of PCB's and heavy metals in your drinking water to help our bottom line.

Illogic Man, can you please name ALL the folks in the Bush administration who are oil men?

Also, Loons, it is NOT the oil companies who set the price of oil per barrel but OPEC and these so-called speculators. That $100 a barrel for oil is what the oil companies PAY for the oil.

Also, for decades now I have been hearing from the Loons how gas prices in the U.S. were too low, that we were paying much less than the $3 to $4 being paid in Europe, and that gas prices needed to go higher to cut consumption. Also, it was the Democrats in 1993 who proposed a 50 cent a gallon gas tax to raise revenue AND to curtail oil and gas consumption.

BC, as usual, you have no clue. Conservation does not work, it barely causes a blip in usage. Even with 10 percent of our gas now being ethanol, oil use continues to spike up. Isn't ethanol a form of conservation? Supply is what is needed -- whether that supply is fossil fuels or alternatives.

From 2001 to 2007 the Democrats blocked any means of increasing our supply. In the 1990s, when many Democratic senators voted to drill in ANWR, many of those same senators then voted not to drill in ANWR in the 2000s.

The high prices are caused by INCREASED worlwide demand, OPEC not supply enough to meet that demand and these so-called speculators.

And in regard to price, isn't Chicago increasing its gas tax? Doesn't Todd, the Boy Crooked County president, want to increase the gas tax by another 5 cents a gallon?

In Illinois, when you add up federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gas, it exceeds 60 cents a gallon. Oil companies make less than 9 cents a gallon of profit on gas. So, who is raping who?

Another way to lower prices is to expand supply,which is what drilling in the arctic would do, at no significant environmental cost.

Posted by: Ray | January 2, 2008 10:28 PM

Sorry Ray but the Energy companies are not that interested in ANWAR anymore. The estimated amounts of petroleum underneath are not that attractive to them. What does attract them is the exploding economies in SE Asia. That is where they are looking to set up shop.

PS What incentive to Oil companies have in building more refineries or tapping more wells? The more they keep supplies tight the more money they make.

Maybe you can you tell the Swamp when the last application for a refinery in the United States was submitted to the Department of Interior?

Pelosi finally stumbled onto one of the major problems with the price of crude - price fixing by the OPEC cartel. The issue of whether US antitrust laws can be applied to foreign countries/businesses is a tough one, but the Justice Department has gone after foreign cartels in other industries that do business in the US, so why not this one?

Remember when Georgie Boy was running for President, and they asked him what he would do about oil prices??

He said he would go to his friends in OPEC and have them help him by increasing production. And they would help him.

Nice job, Georgie.

Paul:

The reason we got rain here in Georgia is because Governor Sonny prayed for it.

Loon:

Not everyone in Georgia is as much of a buffoon as Paul is.

Corporate America:

Too late - I think the PCB's have already gotten to Jerry.

It's their fault, no it's their fault.

I love this.

The 1970s should have taught the US a great lesson. No we just ignored all of the warning signs and went along our merry way doing the same thing that we always do. Nothing.

The Democrats have had a chance to change things and the Republicans have had a chance to change things.

This President, his family, and his administration have some of the BEST contacts in the oil business in the history of the country. When Bush came into office oil was about $20.00/barrel. It has only increased 5 fold since then.

Gee I wonder why? Supply and demand? Nonsense. Restrict the supply at various levels and you and your buddies all make LOTS more money from the same amount of product. Pre-Bush, many of the oil wells in Texas were shut down because it wasn't profitable to pump the oil out. Well guess what? They are certainly running well these days.

For those who think that simply getting more wells out there is the answer, typically Republicans, you're dreaming. Unless we doubled or tripled the production of crude we wouldn't have a significant impact on the price of crude. Additionally, there is still a restriction on refining that the Republicans have allowed to occur.

On the usage side, typically Democrats, we aren't changing much there at all. Trucks, diesel fuel, airplanes, SUVs continually get exemptions. Until that changes, we aren't going to change things.

Solving this problem is best for the country as a whole. Unfortunately, politics has become so polarized that we no longer look for middle of the road solutions.

Maybe if we stopped screwing over these countries that we are robbing of resources, we wouldn't have these issues. Exxon still hasn't pony'd up to Alaska for the damage they caused with the Valdez spill. And that's our own country.

That aside, $100 a barrel is still not representative of what oil costs. Pay up folks. No one is entitled to cheap fuel.

How can you guys complain? We need 100 US to fill up a compact car in Hong Kong. I think so does in UK too.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Hold on to your seats but there is only one way is going and that's UP!! New fields being found have decreased since the mid 80's so don't blame the president but blame big business starting as far back as Henry Ford and the likes. This economy along with all the other growing econonmies are oil greedy. As I stated earlier new oil fields being found have decreased substantial while the worlds needs have increased dramatically!. All other countries want to emulate the USA Democracy as close as they can. Even China said that Communisum wasn't working so when D. Ping Preimer decided to open his doors to western tech and western management traning what happened, we created a monster! Where do you think all the labor intensive manufacturing went too? This opens too many doors such as human rights to working conditions etc. My point is that oil has been the base indgredent to the worlds demise. Alternative energy was being worked on since the 1800's but the combustion engine was easier to devise and oil refined into gas was just as cheap.I am for-warning everyone now that oil prices within the next 10-15 years will hit 350-400 a barrel. Remember your economics class, if there is less supply and more demand what happens... PRICES GO UP!! So as you driving your fuel efficent SUV, Twin turbo what ever, don't say you weren't warned. As a side note... if you want to blame a president, blame Zipper Bill for emptying all the reserves in our salt caverns. Thank-you reading my excerpt. God Bless America!!

James,

How dare you place common sense arguements into this blog. It will just confuse the Bush haters.

HEY!!!! DUMBA$$ CLOWNS AT THE FED!!! QUIT CUTTING INTEREST RATES AND WEAKENING OUR DOLLAR!!!! HEY!!! RETARD IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! QUIT RACKING UP DEBT AND WEAKENING OUR DOLLAR!!! For the rest of you idiots who don't know, oil is denominated in dollars. When the dollar is ultra-weak, as it is now, the price of oil will rise regardless of supply and demand. Demand has been off sharply in the U.S., and world production of oil certainly isn't getting any lower, but the dollar continues to get weaker and so the price of oil will continue to climb. I absolutely guarantee you that if we take any kind of steps to strengthen our dollar and rein in our out-of-control debt, the price of oil will drop by at least 50% in the next year... Just like it did back in 1987, after 8 years of the wise money policies of the brilliant former Fed chairman Paul Volcker.