Why are gas prices so high? You need look no farther than to President Obama. In 2009, with the economy knocked on its heels, gas prices cracked $3.00 a gallon.
People were PISSED.
Fast forward to February 2012. I paid $3.62 per gallon to fill up the Tahoe yesterday. It cost me about $80 to fill up. I shutter to think about gas prices tomorrow. Now, I’m spending about $350.00 a month on gas for my SUV.
My payment is only $212.
The liberal solution? Don’t drive so much. Don’t drive an SUV.
That’s just great isn’t it? Take a step backwards. Don’t go places. Don’t get things done. Don’t use things that work and that you enjoy. Sacrifice.
You know what? I don’t WANT to sacrifice anything. This is the United States of America.
I want to work hard for nice things and use them.
I want to continue to excel.
I want to continue to do more, not less.
I want to continually expand my personal productivity.
I want to live life to the fullest.
I will not be told that I have to lower my standard of living so that a bunch of self-righteaous, ineffective liberal jackasses can pull everybody down to feel better about themselves.
And Obama WANTS higher gas prices. Back in 2008, when gas prices were still closer to $2.00 a gallon, Obama said he wants to help Americans get used to it! Never mind bringing gas prices down. He thinks the higher prices will HELP the economy, as long as the increase is gradual…
Well, all you libs… you got it. $3.62 gas, and estimates as high as $5 by Summer 2012. You happy now?
I just don’t get the appeal of this clown. High gas prices. High taxes. More spending. That’s some platform.
It’s not something that I can comprehend. President Obama has an agenda. He wants a green economy and he wants us to drive low-powered, smaller vehicles that can not meet the needs we have. It’s hard to haul a family around in a car that is so small, it looks like it came out of a cereal box. Your Chevrolet Tahoe doesn’t fit that agenda. Thus, he thinks the higher gas prices will help convince/force you to trade it in for a different kind of vehicle that will not do the job you need it to do. His answer is for us to just get used to it. Our answer is to send him back to Chicago and let him reorganize the community.
Your conclusion is spot on…send him packing.
I think Obama wants more than a green economy. I think a green economy is merely a means to an end. Obama wants a command and control economy and “green” is just one of many tools in his communist tool shed…
To be sure, a green economy is something Obama is using to further his agenda.
Drive up the cost of our energy is just part of the strategy to destroy the economy, and replace it with a totalitorian, socialist economy. Deficit, destructive spending, Obamacare, etc., etc. all part of the Cloward-Piven-Obama plan. He admitted in 1980 he wanted high energy prices, and income and wealth redistribution.
You’re right, David. Even very recently Obama was talking about wanting higher energy prices. Have a look at this post from earlier this month – see the video: http://www.toberight.com/2012/02/at-some-point-obamas-failures-seem-purposeful/
When you have a President who create policies that will “necessarily skyrocket energy prices,” what more needs to be said?
That there are still apologists for this man is mind numbing….
Obama’s “green” projects are not about the environment. They are about giving our tax money to his Democrat buddy insiders…. like Solyndra. So far every one of the “green” project failures fits that description. Can you say, ” C O R R U P T I O N ?”
Spot on, George. I would take it one step further than that… The reason that Obama wants to funnel money into his democrat buddies is for 1) To increase their power and influence 2) To facilitate the passage of laws that will add controls to the populace and 3) Because energy is the third wheel of American productivity, along with health care and the financial sector.
Once Obama controls these three sectors, we are effectively a democratic socialist country. That is Obama’s real goal.
Thanks for your comment, George! Hope to see you around more!
This article is great:
I want to be self-interested
I want to be un-ingenuitive
I want to live in the past
I want to sacrifice the worlds resources for my personal American lifestyle!
Not one mention of personal responsibility in Harry’s entire whine!
Question: At what level of sacrifice do you wish to enjoy that neo-wild west, texas, starbuck sucking, suburban driving soccor mom, i’m American fuck you attitude?
And how unexpected, a right-wing rant site with a bunch of right-wing clique members stroking each other off on their o-so-researched opinions!
Why is it this country’s citizens feel compelled to organize themselves on either one team or the other? I’m curious where the average yearly income of the division line lies! You people need to stop thinking in terms of partisan rhetoric, and stop drinking whatever kool-aid spits forth from your ‘candidates’ lying, biased, self-interested mouths! This isn’t high school! THINK for yourselves! Do RESEARCH before regurgitating whatever B.S. you parties media puppets throw at you! The facts in these comments are astoundingly biased, wrong, or taken out of context and conveniently leaving out crucial facts that wouldn’t support your accusations. Example:
LD Jackson- guess what, having higher efficient vehicles has NOTHING to do with sacrificing the size and power of your chosen vehicle! This was proven many times, it is simply a matter of public interest as expressed in buying trends, that motivate the auto-makers to do so! If BIG OIL weren’t spending their campaign dollars corrupting your brains into thinking otherwise, you might have known that!-and you might ASK for that of your automakers! They only cater to what people buy, people only buy what they’ve been deceived into thinking they want! Guess what, by people that have financial interests in using more oil! We’ve had technology to have over 100MPG cars for 50 years now, OBAMA is simply trying to move the country’s corporate interests into re-developing that after BIG OIL killed it off [literally, killed the inventors off] of this technology. Do you people WANT to keep buying foreign oil? The keystone pipeline is not the answer, what, more Canadian jobs created? What, to bring oil to the gulf so we can EXPORT it?? The real problem here is the OIL refineries are controlling the cost of gas by artificially restricting production, even going so far as shutting down key refineries as part of this plan. If your laughable Newt Gingrich tool really wanted $2.00 gas, he’d bring the hammer down on the people that pay for his campaign-YEP, BIG OIL AGAIN! Why would he do that!? Look at HIS policy voting history!? More oil is not the answer, preventing them from price gouging IS…ending the wasting of [taxpayers] money on ridiculously undeserved subsidies IS, forcing policy down the throats of big oil to stabilize and make fair the actual, real-cost of gas WOULD! If you people actually think not having more efficient vehicles and thereby not buying inflated gas prices is un-American, you need to get your head out of your asses! Or should I say wallets?
Uggghh – Sunday morning… this is the first comment I read. My hope for humanity takes a down turn…
I’ve got to do this quick…my coffee is way more important than this. But…
@Mobias – I certainly appreciate your passion. That said:
Self interest is what you must have for a democratic Republic to work. There is a difference between self interest and selfishness. A populace absent of self interest is a Utopian fantasy.
Personal responsibility is the keystone of all that is written here. You have either not bothered to gain context, or not comprehended what has been written on these many hundreds of pages.
I must admit ignorance: I don’t know what a “neo-wild west, texas, starbuck sucking, suburban driving soccor mom, i’m American fuck you attitude” is. I think it means that you don’t like America and fault me because I do? Not sure…
Yes, this is a right wing rant site. Loud and proud. Like minded opinions are kind of expected, don’t you think? Still, there are many – MANY – liberals who visit these pages. Not only do I regularly approve leftist comments, but on many occasions have given then a spotlight to state their case. Again, maybe you just missed that.
“…having higher efficient vehicles has NOTHING to do with sacrificing the size and power of your chosen vehicle!” I missed that. Find me a vehicle that can match the hauling power or cargo room that my Tahoe has, and that is also fuel efficient. You can’t – even with the government and public unions owning GM.That statement is an absurdity.
“If BIG OIL weren’t spending their campaign dollars corrupting your brains into thinking otherwise, you might have known that! – and you might ASK for that of your automakers!” Um, what the hell are you talking about? “Big oil campaign dollars?” Yeah, whatever dude. Talk about corrupting brains…I wish I had a smart response to this, but it’s so stupid, I’m at a loss.
“…the real problem here is the OIL refineries are controlling the cost of gas by artificially restricting production, even going so far as shutting down key refineries as part of this plan.” There has not been an oil refinery built in the USA since the 1970′s. Guess why? Moreover, refining oil is a small part of oil company operation and production. The price and availability of crude oil is what drive the market. But you bring up a good point; refining prices have sky rocketed in the past 3 decades as environmentalist pressure has mandated that gasoline be refined into dozens of formulations, sometimes multiple formulations in one state. This increases the cost to produce and transport gasoline across the country.
“Guess what, by people that have financial interests in using more oil! We’ve had technology to have over 100MPG cars for 50 years now, OBAMA is simply trying to move the country’s corporate interests into re-developing that after BIG OIL killed it off [literally, killed the inventors off] of this technology.”
Wow – get my tin foil hat! “Big Oil” is assassinating inventors! Even though someone invented a market ready 100mpg car (all by himself?) “Big Oil” killed him! Now the technology is forever lost! I guess we had to see the real you eventually… this is certifiable. Not to mention that the Constitution does not give the President the power to “move the country’s corporate interests.” But as a leftist, I guess that doesn’t matter so much to you.
Okay – I’ll bite… how about you post your evidence of this? I’ll post it in its entirety. If you have evidence that “Big Oil” (whoever that is) is having inventors killed, I want to know. The world wants to know.
“More oil is not the answer.” But having the government control the sale of one of our main consumables is. Spoken like a true Statist. At least your consistent, I’ll give you that.
Lastly, “I’m curious where the average yearly income of the division line lies!” How about this… you have no idea where the division line lies. My wife and I work our asses off owning 2 small businesses. She started on her own completely, and built a fine little business. I got laid off 3 years ago from a technology company and had to start from scratch. No money, no help from any body, no savings and this was with a new family. You have no idea who you’re talking to, so making assumptions just makes you look stupid. I’ll let LD Jackson tell you where he is on the “line” if he so chooses…my guess is that he won’t waste the time.
So, I’ll wait on the edge of my seat for you to produce the details of “Big Oil” killing off technology inventors. And I guess I’ll wait for the new 1/2 Ton trucks to come out that have 350 horsepower, 100mpg and cost $20,000.00. Until that time – in what, 20, 30, 50 years? – I’ll just sacrifice and walk back my lifestyle.
Heck, maybe we can go back to horses and buggies!
And conservatives want to live in the past? F-ing laughable.
Wow, what a long-winded and ill-informed comment by mobias. I’m going to skip right over the insulting parts, since Harry has already taken that well in hand. Let us move on to the example you cited from my previous comment. Here is what I said.
You said:
You went on to say we have had the technology to have a car that gets 100 MPG for over 50 years. While I am not aware of that technology, I will give you that one. However, let me ask you this. Does that technology work in a vehicle that is the size of a SUV? Does it work in a semi-tractor rig? I think not. What are we supposed to do, stop driving the kinds of vehicles we need? I drove a mini-van for years, simply because I had to have one for my family. Was I supposed to trade it in on a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle, just because some environmentalist idiot said that was the thing for me to do? I think not.
You can rant and rave all you want to about the oil companies deceiving us into believing we need such vehicles, but the facts don’t bear that out. We have a great need for these vehicles because that is the way our country is set up. We have a lot of rural areas with large families living there. Large, as in 2, 3, or 4 children. Simply put those families can not cram themselves into a smaller vehicle. Vehicles such as Harry’s Chevrolet Tahoe are not a status symbol or anything else, only a necessity. It’s something he needs. The mini-van was something I needed.
The agenda President Obama is putting forth doesn’t accept that fact. It ignores the fact that the alternative energies he so often touts is simply not viable. Not only does most of it not work, it is so expensive that most people can’t afford it. I would be glad to purchase it, if I am able, when it is available, but that day hasn’t really arrived. So, given the choice between purchasing a vehicle that is the government’s choice for me, but doesn’t meet my needs, or a vehicle that meets my needs, but gives Obama and company hives, I choose the latter. The hives part would be a bonus for me.
So now that Harry and company have had a chance to knock mobias down a peg or two, I’d like to comment on one point he/she made:
“We’ve had technology to have over 100MPG cars for 50 years now”
What mobias fails to realize is that the energy production is not as cut and dry as he/she makes it out to be. So, as an engineer, here is my rebuttal. The REAL reason for our continued dependency on fossil fuels that there are no alternative fuel sources that can meet ALL of these requirements in order to effectively replace fossil fuels:
1. Energy potential – With the exception of biofuels, no alternative energy source currently available even comes close to the energy potential of fossil fuels. Gasoline has an energy density of about 47 MJ/kg. In comparison, a lithium-ion battery only has .72 MJ/kg. Compressed hydrogen is very promising at 123 MJ/kg. Solar cells can harness only a small percentage of the sun’s total energy potential. As with wind power, the only way we can effectively utilize solar power is to create very large arrays which present their own problems in terms of cost and real estate requirements to name a few.
2. Energy Efficiency – While we do not really have any ultra-efficient energy sources, this is one area where solar power really takes a hit. Currently available photo voltaic solar cells are only about 30-40% efficient at best. While internal combustion engines are also very inefficient, the huge energy density od gasoline and diesel fuel balances that negative.
3. Affordability – Here’s where I will use the corn-based biofuel fiasco. A perfect example of what happens when the government tries to “fix” out energy problems. End result – fuel AND corn prices rose dramatically. Most of the advanced battery technologies currently being developed are heavily dependent on precious metals whose word-wide supplies are largely controlled by Russia and China. Ever notice that a lithium-ion battery is exponentially more expensive than a standard dry cell or alkaline battery?
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/26/china-pondering-hoarding-precious-metals-used-in-hybrids-and-evs/
4. Infrastructure Availability – The big issues here is energy storage , transportation and delivery. It has taken this country 100 years to build out a fossil fuel based infrastructure. Simply suggesting that we can outright replace that infrastructure overnight is a Utopian fantasy. And who do imagine will pay for that? While compressed hydrogen is a good alternative fuel candidate from in terms of energy density, the infrastructure problems have prevented wholesale adoption as an alternative fuel source.
And if you don’t believe me, here are my sources taken from very smart people that are helping shape our national energy policies.
1. David B. Barber, MS, Nuclear Engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory, stated the following in his Mar. 24, 2005 article “Nuclear Energy and the Future: The Hydrogen Economy or the Electricity Economy?”:
“The wind doesn’t always blow and sunlight isn’t always striking every solar panel. Renewable energy desperately needs a very big battery, a load leveler. Without some form of energy storage, renewables are physically limited to less than a twenty percent share of the grid. At twenty percent, renewables are more of a headache than a resource for a grid manager. Electricity storage tools are expensive. Very expensive. Too expensive to justify on their own or at societal scale.”
2. Robert L. Bradley, Jr., PhD, Founder and Chairman of the Institute for Energy Research, stated the following in his Apr. 22, 1999 article “The Increasing Sustainability of Conventional Energy,”
“Environmentalists support a major phase-down of fossil fuels (with the near-term exception of natural gas) and substitution of favored ‘nonpolluting’ energies to conserve depletable resources and protect the environment. Yet energy megatrends contradict those concerns. Fossil-fuel resources are becoming more abundant, not scarcer, and promise to continue expanding as technology improves, world markets liberalize, and investment capital expands. The conversion of fossil fuels to energy is becoming increasingly efficient and environmentally sustainable in market settings around the world. Fossil fuels are poised to increase their market share if environmentalists succeed in politically constraining hydropower and nuclear power.
Artificial reliance on unconventional energies is problematic outside niche applications. Politically favored renewable energies for generating electricity are expensive and supply constrained and introduce their own environmental issues. Alternative vehicular technologies are, at best, decades away from mass commercialization. Meanwhile, natural gas and reformulated gasoline are setting a torrid competitive pace in the electricity and transportation markets, respectively.”
3. Walter Youngquist, PhD, Emeritus Chair of the Department of Geology at the University of Oregon at Portland, stated the following in his Spring 2005 article “Spending Our Great Inheritance; Then What,” in The Social Contract:
“Ethanol is a net energy loss – it takes 70 percent more energy to produce than is obtained from the product itself. Other biomass resources show, at best, very low net energy recovery…
The two most popularly suggested energy alternatives, wind and solar, suffer because they’re undependable, intermittent sources of energy, and the end product is electricity. We have no way to store large amounts of electricity for use when wind and sunshine are not with us. Geothermal and tidal energy are insignificant energy sources in total but can be locally important. Nuclear energy can be a large power source if the safety aspects can be guaranteed (and this may be possible) — but again, the end product is electricity. There is no battery pack even remotely in sight that would supply the energy needed to effectively power bulldozers, heavy agricultural equipment such as tractors and combines, or 18-wheelers hauling freight cross-country.
Can electricity be used to obtain hydrogen as a fuel from water? It can, but hydrogen is difficult to store and dangerous to handle. And there is no energy system now visualized to replace kerosene jet fuel, which propels a Boeing 747 about 600 miles an hour nonstop on the 14-hour trip from New York to Capetown (currently the longest plane flight). We continue to seek the holy grail of energy – fusion – but containing the heat of the sun at 10 million degrees Centigrade is still only a far-off hope.”
Mobias: If I were you, I would take YOUR OWN advice and do RESEARCH and provide HARD DATA instead of ranting.