Obama administration not interested in lower gas prices for Americans

24 replies [Last post]
Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009

Obama doesn't care about Americans. He doesn't care about the economy. He doesn't care about the tens of thousands of jobs that the Keystone pipline would bring to the U.S.
He's only interested in maintaining power. He's not a leader - he's a thug and a dictator.

There are no viable alternative fuels. Obama would rather Americans suffer and that the economy tank while he goes chasing after pipe dreams like fuel from algae, rainbows, and puppy dog tails.

Looking forward to the day when the dictator Obama is voted out of office.


DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Uh-oh

Looks like Prepuce Obama won't be able to buy a Chevy Volt after he gets voted out of the White House in November 2012 after all -

GM temporarily halts production of Volt

GM, which is based in Detroit, announced to employees at one of its facilities that it was halting production of the beleaguered electric car for five weeks and temporarily laying off 1,300 employees.

Wasn't this the company that poor butterfly Barry Hussein Obama was touting as some sort of success story from taxpayer funded bailout that went to the Unions instead of secured creditors as mandated by law? Oh, that's right. Laws don't apply to dictators like Obama - they just make it up as they go.

If you think that the $40,000 price tag on the Volt is high - just look at the taxpayer funded subsidy -

Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle

Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

This is the bed-wetting liberal idea of a success story. For liberals, down is up, left is right, and wrong is right.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Senate sends message to Obama on Keystone

Wow- Obama must really hate America and Americans. He has no interest in driving fuel prices down. He is only interested in dictating the type of fuel that Americans use and the cars they drive.

Senate sends message to Obama on Keystone

Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Hey Joe, the only message the US Senate sent was this:

“Look how stupid we are. The proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline haven’t even submitted their revised plan, yet we are voting to rubber stamp the project anyway.”

Sometimes it’s hard to believe that most members of the US Senate are actually lawyers.

But lets be honest, this vote had nothing to do with the Keystone XL pipeline. The real reason this was brought up was to divert attention away from the Baucus/Rubio 'anti-women amendment' to the jobs bill, they also failed to get passed.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Gort you are wrong...

The Bill put forth by the Bi-Partisan committee addressed President Obama's AND the Environmental wackos claims and (sic) concerns.

His continued refusal to to allow the deal is simply payback to Buffet and Soros for their Millions.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey Gort

Eleven Demos sided with the Repubs and voted for it - just 4 votes shy of acceptance. That's after the President personally lobbied several Demo senators for a "no' vote.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
S. Lindsey

Sorry. I see you posted the same factoid last Thursday. I've got to do a better job of keeping up with the posts.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Hey CY... Hard trying to keep up with this administrations

folly's.

So much to chose from so much grist for the mill.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
SLindsey, Cyclist, what

SLindsey, Cyclist, what difference does it make if it was a Bi-Partisan committee or not. It was still a political vote they knew wouldn’t pass.

I stand by my statement:

Quote:

The proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline haven’t even submitted their revised plan, yet the (US Senate) is voting to rubber stamp the project anyway.”

Sorry boys but that is just stupid.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Stupid

is denying that the internal combustion engine will be with us no matter how much the government attempts to drive up the price of oil. You see Gort all that "alternative energy" needs oil to get it going, keep it going and make it work. Oh yes, the big oil companies are getting billions to "develop" alternative "solutions". So, whether it be oil or coal the state can't change the laws of thermodynamics.

The only people that lose in the alternative energy argument are people that go to the pump, turn on the stove, or heating and cooling system. I think that's nearly everyone Gort. All of this to enrich the few that have connections to those with "vision" and the alternative energy sham. All the while, we export our nation's wealth to people that hate us, tax our people for no reason, and destroy our competitive position in the world.

It's not about the Keystone XL pipeline Gort, it's much, much bigger than that. It's about corruption, political self-interest and power over the masses.

Now who's really stupid or is it just naive?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Stupid?
Quote:

Now who's really stupid or is it just naive?

Stupid? The 80% in some communities who don't vote! The non-voters make corruption, political self- interest powerful. Sad.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - What's

really stupid is thinking that the "people" are bright enough to elect the most powerful man on earth in the form of the President of the United States, but they are too stupid to decide what kind of light bulb, car, food, or energy they would like to buy. Now that's really stupid.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

So we continue to allow the ad writers to mold our thinking? We need to put our money into education so we are no longer # 17 instead of #1. Then maybe we'd have more citizens who are capable of thinking for themselves.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Well

it simply brings into question the whole idea of democracy, that's all.

No matter the amount of money you pour into public education it will never get you from #17 to #1. I think we have proven this over the last five decades.

The issue at hand DM, is freedom. Individual freedom that allows individuals to make decisions free of government intervention in their lives. This is a pretty simple but a frightening concept to some that can't make it in this world without government support. The neo-capitalists, politicians, and unionized government employees are all those that benefit from government power at the expense of the many.

No DM, if you want to get from #17 to #1, don't count on any government program to get us there, including public education. Government is a formula for failure, just look around you. If you really want to get to #1, give people individual freedom to work in their own self-interest, make their own decisions and unleash the potential of our creative, innovative, and productive citizens. Government simply needs to get out of the way.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
What does this new freedom look like PTCO?
Quote:

Government is a formula for failure, just look around you. If you really want to get to #1, give people individual freedom to work in their own self-interest, make their own decisions and unleash the potential of our creative, innovative, and productive citizens. Government simply needs to get out of the way

Government today is NOT of the people, by the people, for the people. Americans take their freedom for granted and do not use their power at the voting booth. Will giving up what we have and don't use change anything? When will this new freedom go into affect? Who will be the leaders?

I agree, putting more money into an educational system and ignoring the educational
practices that are improving student performance is a waste. Before corruption took hold of too much our lives, we, the public and our country benefitted from public education. Corrupt publishers, developers, administrators have diminished the most outstanding educational system in the world. What do you see as eliminating corruption after you get rid of 'government'?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Good points, PTCO. 20 years late, but still good

You are 100% correct about creative, innovative and productive citizens, Sadly, that won't work anymore. Thanks to the bungling government obsessed with equality, fairness and political correctness, we are 1 generation past where the country is brimming with entrepentural spirit and self-reliance. And probably 1 generation in the future we will be well past the point of no return. Entitlement programs and how to manipulate them both legally and illegally is a skill that far too many citizens have while at the same time they lack the basic skills how to read, write, do math and even speak understandable English. I also suspect that we are close to the point where we have more people with tattoos than are registered to vote. College degrees, traditional marriages and having a regular job with growth potential - all out of fashion. Bounceback kids, babies outside of wedlock and 99 weeks on unemployment is the new normal. How did we get here?

Real entrepentural people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Bernie Marcus who actually created products and jobs and wealth could not do it again today. Instead we have things like Facebook and Yahoo that pass for the greatest things invented in the last 10 years. Give me a break.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, so your argument is,

PTC_0, so your argument is, it’s okay for the US Congress to approve the Keystone XL pipeline before they even know precisely the path it’s going to take and before an environmental study is completed?

Tell me what is more important, fresh water for human consumption or oil for use in the internal combustion engine?

Do you think pipelines that carry tar sands don’t leak? Read a little bit about what happened to a stretch of the Kalamazoo River.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kalamazoo+river+oil+spill&hl=en&prmd=imv...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - "The

sky is falling approach" will get us exactly where we currently are Gort, dependency.

No technology comes with a "risk free" proposition. If oil companies harm private property then they should be made to pay for it and if there is gross negligence, then some executives should go to jail. Otherwise the Congress shouldn't be involved at all.

Generally speaking, I think for the amount of energy we get out of the earth the energy companies have done pretty well. You can always find exceptions and when you do, you go to seek remedies in the courts. My guess is that is exactly what happened in the Kalamazoo case.

As far as what is more important oil or water, the market will determine that based on the price, which is as you know determined by supply and demand.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I can hardly

PTC_0, I can hardly understand what your answer has to do with any of the questions I asked, (too philosophical for me,) but let’s try again.

Would you approve a transcontinental pipeline engineering project to pump tar sands, and all the chemical byproducts that go with it, through the largest drainage basin in the USA without knowing all the risk and terms?

BTW, dependency? Smokers have a dependency, should they smoke more to cure themselves of it?
BTW2, nobody is asking for risk free but needless risk is just reckless.
BTW3, they’ve been working on the Kalamazoo River for two years and not done yet. The only way they can afford to keep fixing what they have damaged is to pump more tar sands. That makes them too big to fail or the taxpayers get stuck with the cost of the cleanup?
BTW4, the King of Saudi Arabia, and even oil speculators, can kick the crap out of your “free market” fantasy.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Here's what you get when government gets involved

$50 Light Bulb Wins Government "Affordability" Prize

The U.S. government has awarded appliance-maker Philips $10 million for devising an “affordable” alternative to today’s standard 60-watt incandescent bulb. That standard bulb sells for around $1. The Philips alternative sells for $50.

In government terms, $50 is "affordable" for a light bulb. No doubt they will make sure that they are given to the "poor" for "free" and force other taxpayers to pay for them.

You gotta hand it to Phillips. They tricked the government into giving them $10 million dollars for a product that they already produce and sell for less than half of what the government calls "affordable".

Philips Ambient LED 12-Watt (60W) A19 Light Bulb- $24.95

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
The Truth about Tar Sands

Environmental concerns aside (& my apology to T.Bone Pick'ems); it make no sense (cents) to move northern Alberta to Houston, TX. This country has neglected its Energy Policy for 40 years. Anyone remember the plumbleming John Anderson took for even suggesting a .50 cent energy tax in 1980? It has been swept under the rug since Nixon.
I know it will be pooh-poohed because the Christian Science Monitor is on the liberal msnbc as this not being factual. The USA will not drill, will not frack, will not conquer its way out of ITS Energy crisis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46689167/ns/us_news-christian_science_monito...

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Could use more like him

Golly back in the day when things were more civil and less partisan..
John Anderson "He's the smartest guy in Congress, but he insists on voting his conscience instead of party." - Gerald Ford[4].
Of course there is no place in the current GOP for a Anderson, Ford, Rockefeller(s), Percy, Dirksen, T.R.,Ike, Nixon, Lindsey, Ed Brooke, and the list goes on. Why they are going to lose.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
bladderq & "could use more like him"

Is thatlike there's no place in the Dem party for folks like David Boren & Sam Nunn?

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
?

You sound like you believe a gov. from Arkansas or a senator from TN or Jimmy Carter were some sorta raving lunatic liberals. I dare say even Zell Miller has more in common w/ the Dem party than he does w/ the in-Sanityorum (Rush) party or the local GA Sen. Crane. I think former Sen's Boren & Nunn & former Sec of State Powell are not welcome under the present day little tent the Repugs have pitched. I'm not sure even Ronnie RAYguns would want to enter. Goldwater, Yes; but not in his later years. In my original post I left out Daddy Bush would never be considered. And of my gawd, Granddaddy Sen.Prescott Bush (R.Conn) must roll over & over. Bush was politically active on social issues. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. Bush was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Nunn White House bid ended on April 18, 2008, when he endorsed D

On August 19, 2007 Nunn said he would not decide on a presidential bid until after the 2008 primary season, when presumptive nominees by both parties would emerge.[28] However, speculation over a Nunn White House bid ended on April 18, 2008, when he endorsed Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama.[29]
Despite having publicly declared his lack of interest in being a candidate for vice president, Nunn continued to be mentioned by some political pundits and politicians as a potential running mate for Obama.[30][31][32]
In an interview published June 4, 2008 by the Guardian, former President Jimmy Carter said that he favored Nunn, a fellow Georgian, as Obama's possible choice for Vice President. Peggy Noonan, a columnist and former Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush speechwriter also expressed her support for Nunn.[33]
In an interview with CNBC on August 22, 2008, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that he favored Nunn as Obama's choice for Vice President.
After Senator Joe Biden was selected as Obama's running mate, speculation began to swirl that Nunn could be a possible Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration, given Nunn and Obama's shared goal of securing loose nuclear weapons.

Recent Comments